ltip>ifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS.










[All reserved.] Cambridge :


S dissertation is published in accordance with thr conditions attached to the Hare Prize, and appears nearly in its original form. For many , however, I should have desired to the work to a more under the searching revision than has been practicable circumstances. Indeed, error is especially difficult t<> avoid in dealing with a large body of scattered , a the majority of which can only be consulted in public- library. to be for The obligations, which require acknowledged of Zeno and the present collection of the fragments former are Cleanthes, are both special and general. The - soon disposed of. In the Neue Jahrbticher fur Wellmann an lofjie for 1878, p. 435 foil., published article on , which was the first serious of Zeno from that attempt to discriminate the teaching of Wellmann were of the in general. The omissions of the supplied and the first complete collection fragments of Cleanthes was made by Wachsmuth in two Gottingen I programs published in 187-i LS75 (Commentationes s et II de Zenone Citiensi et Cleaitt/ie Assio). Mullach I of the collection of the fragments of Cleanthes in vol. is so Fragmenta Philusoplioriun Gnieconnn inadequate as hardly to deserve mention. VI PREFACE.

Among the general aids the first place is claimed by Zeller s Philosophic der Griecheit, which has been con stantly consulted. The edition referred to is the Second edition of the English of the part dealing with the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, which appeared in 1880. In a few cases the fourth German edition has

also been Reference is also quoted. made to the English of the other parts of Zeller s book, wherever available. Except incidentally, Zeller gives up the at tempt to the development of the Stoa in the hands of its successive leaders, and this deficiency is to some extent supplied by the ingenious work of Hirzel, die Entivicklung der Stoischen Philosophic, forming the second volume of his Untersuchunyen zu s Philosophischen To Hirzel Schriften. belongs the credit of having vin dicated the originality of Cleanthes against ancient and modern detractors, although in working out his views he often argues on somewhat shadowy foundations, and has unduly depreciated the importance of the contributions made Zeno. Stein s by Lastly, two books die Psijchologie der Stoa (1880), and die Erkenntnistheorie der Stoa (1888), have been of great service, and his views, where he disagrees with Hirzel, have been generally adopted. Many other books have of course been consulted and be found cited from to time, among which Krische s die theologischen Lehren der Griechischen Denker, and Diels Doxograpld Graeci, deserve special mention. Al though the results arrived at have been checked by the aid of modern writers, the ancient authorities and es pecially Laertius, , , and (Eclogae), Cicero have been throughout treated as the primary source of . The refer ences to Stobaeus are accommodated to Wachsmuth s edition (Berlin, 1884). Susemihl s article on the birth- PREFACE. vii year of Zeno in the Nem Jahrb ticker fur Pldloloyie for 1889 appeared too late to be utilised for the introduction. A must be said with reference to the plan of the present collection. No attempt has been made to disentangle in every case the of the writer from the body of the in which they appear. Although this is practicable in some cases, in others it is mere guess-work, and a uniform system has therefore been adopted. For similar reasons the fragments have been arranged as far as possible in natural sequence, without regard to the comparatively few cases in which \ve know the names of the books from which they were derived. However, the arrangement has been a of much perplexity, especially in those cases where the authorities overlap each other, and several modifications in the order would have been introduced as the result of a larger , were it not that each alteration throws all the references into confusion. The collection was made and put together practically in its present form before an opportunity offered of consulting Wachsmuth s pamphlets, and it was satisfactory to find that only a few of his passages had been missed. On the other hand, the ad ditional matter Avhich will be found here for the first time is not large. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that we now possess the greater portion of the material, which is available for reconstructing the of the earlier Stoa. For the sake of completeness I have included even those notices, whose authenticity is open to suspicion, as well as a collection of the so-called Apophthefjmata, though it is often impossible to draw a strict between written and oral . I to thank Mr R. 1). Hicks, Fellow of College, for many valuable suggestions and . COmtlGENDA.

p. 37, 1. 13, for "he was only able" read "he alone was able p. 53, 1. 23, add "see however on Cleanth. frag. 114." INTRODUCTION.

1. of Zeno.

TIIK of Zeno s life 1 a of much chronology , formerly subject dispute, has been almost entirely cleared up by an important passage discovered in one of the rolls found at Hercu- laneum, which contains a history of the Stoic and 2 was tirst edited by Comparetti in 1875 . From this we learn that Cleanthes was born in 331 B.C., and, as we know from 3 other sources that he lived to the age of 99, he must have 4 died in B.C. -32 in the archonship of Jason . But, according of his death he had to the papyrus (col. 29), at the time pre for 32 which fixes the death of sided over the years", Zeno as having taken place in B.C. 2G4, thus confirming the of , who says under the year Ol. 129, 1 --B.C.

; 264, 3 "Zeno Stoicus moritur post quern Cleanthes philosophus distirct agnoscitur." Now, in Diog. Laert. vn. 28 we have two

1 See Bohde in Bhcin. Mus. 33, p. 622. Goinperz ib. 34, p. 154. Susemihl s article iu Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1882, vol. 125, pp. 737 746, does not add anything to our of the chronology of Zeuo s life. - Col. 28, 29. Comparetti this book to be the work of . 3 Macrob. 11). Val. Max. vin. 7, Ext. 11. 4 col. 28 sir So too the papyrus (d)ir-r]\\dy(Tj apxovTos l)dffoi>os. 5 reads Such at least is the restoration of Gouiperz : Comparetti after /cat rpiaKovTo. Kal OKTU, but admits that dvo is possible. The word is illegible. 6 So Bolide states, but iu Migne s ed. of i. p. 498 the state ment appears to belong to 01. 128.

H. P. 1 2 INTRODUCTION. accounts of his age at the time of his death, the one, that of

Persaeus, in his TJOtKal o-^o\ai, who makes him 72, and the other derived from 1 apparently Apollonius Tyrius , declaring that he lived to be 98 years old. Apart from internal con siderations, the authority of is unquestionably the higher, and reckoning backwards we are thus enabled to place the birth of Zeno in the year 336 B.C.* Rohde suggests that the other computation may have been deduced by Apollonius Tyrius from the letter to Antigonus, now on other grounds shown to be spurious, but which Diogenes unquestionably 3 extracted from Apollonius book on Zeno . In this Zeno is represented as speaking of himself as an octogenarian, so that on the assumption that the letter was written in B.C. 282, shortly after Antigonus first became king of , and, calcu lating to the true date of Zeno s death (B.C. 264), he would 4 have been 98 years of age in the latter year . the son of 5 born at a Zeno, Mnaseas , was Citium, Greek city in the south-east of , whose population had been 6 increased by Phoenician immigrants . Whether he was of Greek blood or not we cannot tell 7 but we can pure , readily believe that his birthplace, while it in no degree influenced his philosophical genius, which was truly Hellenic, yet gave an

1 A Stoic (floruit in the earlier half of the 1st century B.C.). For his work on Zeno s life see Diog. L. vn. 1. 2. 24. 28. xvi. 2. 24. 3 Gomperz I.e. undertook to prove that Zeno died in the month Sciro- phorion (01. 128, 4) = 264 B.C., offering to produce the proofs in a later article, but this does not seem to have been fulfilled. 3 Diog. L. vii. 7. 8. 4 The weakness of this in the that Antigonus Gonatas did not become King of Macedon until 278 277 B.C., although no doubt he was struggling for the crown from the time of the death of his father Demetrius in B.C. 283. This is met to some extent by Kohde 1. c. p. 624 n. 1. 5 Diog. L. vii. 1 mentions Demeas as another name given to his father but elsewhere he is always ZTJVUC )lva<rtov. 8 died while besieging this place (Thuc. i. 112). 7 Stein, Psychologic der Stoa n. 3 sums up, without deciding, in favour of a Phoenician origin. So also Ogereau p. 4 whereas Heinze thinks that everything points the other way (Bursian s Jahresbericht vol. 50, p. 53). INTRODUCTION. 3

Oriental complexion to his tone of , and affected the

of his literary style, so that the epithet "Phoenician," cast in his teeth his 1 is afterwards scornfully by opponents , in any case not altogether unwarranted. 2 the of Persaeus L. Again following authority (Diog. I.e.) , we may conclude that he arrived at at the age of 2 2, but as to the cause which brought him thither we are dif is came for the ferently informed, and it uncertain whether of or in furtherance of express purpose studying philosophy , 4 some mercantile enterprise . There is however a consensus of testimony to the effect that he suffered shipwreck on his voyage to Athens, a misfortune which he afterwards learnt to 5 bless as it had driven him to philosophy . The story of his H first meeting with Crates is characteristic : Zeno, who had sat a s recently arrived at Athens, one clay down by bookseller stall and became engrossed in listening to the perusal of the second book of s . Suddenly he en were to quired of the bookseller where such men as be found. At that moment Crates happened to pass down

the street, and Zeno, acting on a hint from the bookseller, from that time attached himself to the Cynic teacher. It is impossible to reconcile the dates, which we have taken as correct, with the remaining indications of time, which are scattered through the pages of Diogenes. Thus we are told that Zeno was a pupil of and for under the tuition of ten years, that the whole time spent and Crates, Stilpo, Xenocrates and Polemo was twenty years, that Zeno presided over the School, which he himself founded, 7 . last is the of for fifty-eight years This Apollonius,

1 Cic. de Fin. iv. 56 et So (powiKlSiov Crates ap. Diog. L. vn. 3. Cf. saep. - vn. Another account gives his age as thirty (Diog. L. 2). 3 Diog. L. vn. 32. 4 Diog. L. vn. 3. 5 See Zeno apoph. 3, and the notes. 6 Diog. L. vn. 3. 7 is traced Eohde to Diog. L. vii. 2. 4. 28. The other tradition by Evidence of his Apollodonis known as 6 rovs \povov^ dvaypa-^as. having dealt with Zeno s will be found in Philod. -rrfpi chronology 12 4 INTRODUCTION. and must be taken in connection with his opinion that Zeno lived till he was 98 years of age. Probably, Apollonius adopted the tradition that Zeno came to Athens at the age of thirty, and allowed ten years for the period of tuition. He must have assigned B.C. 322 as the date of the foundation of the Stoa, which is obviously far too early. According to the chronology adopted above, Zeno came to Athens about B.C. 314, and, if so, he cannot have been a pupil of Xenocrates, who died in that year. All that can be said with any approach to is that after a somewhat extended period of study under Crates, Stilpo, and Polemo, Zeno at length, probably soon after 300 B.C. to take on his own , began pupils account, without attaching himself to any of the then existing philo sophical . These pupils were at first called Zenonians, but when their master held his lectures in the Stoa Poikile, they adopted the name of Stoics which they afterwards retained *.

Though not yet rivalling the in respect 3 of the of its followers the Stoic , philosophy steadily won its way into general esteem no less by the personal influ ence of its founder than through the fervour of its adherents. So great, indeed, was the respect which the character of Zeno 4 inspired at Athens, that shortly before his death a decree col. xi. (Here. vol. coll. prior vol. vm.) For Zeno s teachers cf. Nuuie- nius ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 5, p. 729 HoXfuuvos 8t eytvovro yvupi.fj.oL *ai ovv eiiruv elra 8t ApKecriXaos 7^vti)v...7iijv<jjva fj.(i> fj.(/j.vr]fj.a.t Sepo/cparei ai flis 6e ni vurai. vvvi 8t llo\4fj.wi>i <oiT?7<rcu, irapa K/MTT/TI aiTtf \f\oyifft)w, Kai 2,Ti\ird)v6s n /ecu r(tiv ruv firti on fj.frf<f)(f, \6yui> l{paK\fiTeiuv. yap et y ffVfj.(poiT<j)i>T(s irapa IloXe/xuw f^tXort/XTjtfrjtraf dXXTyXois <rufj.irape\al3oi> rr]v irpo? dXX^Xoiis iMxyv, o M^ 1* Hp4itX*lTW Kai UTiXiruva apa /cat Kpar^ra, iLv virb fj.v iirtXTrwi os tyevero p.a\r)Tris, virb 5e HpCUrXcffW avffrypds, Kvmcot 8( inri) KpanjTos. 1 According to Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vn. 321, Zeno was a irptcr/Si/r^s refers when he irpo<rt/j.aprvpri(rtv favri^i rr)v eiipecrtv T-^S a.\r)0fias. This to the publication of his writings, but this must have shortly followed the opening of the school. Jerome on Euseb. Chron. (i. p. 498 Migne) says

" opposite 01. 126 Zeno Stoicus philosophus agnoscitur." 2 Diog. L. vn. 5. 3 Zeno apoph. 6. 4 The decree was carried in the archonship of Arrhenides, i.e. Nov. 265 B.C., if Arrhenides was 265 204 as seems to be Gomperz s opinion, vid. supr. p. 2, n. 2. INTRODUCTION.

him a crown was passed by the assembly awarding golden funeral in the Ceramicus on and entitling him to a public his decease. The grounds mentioned in the body of the for decree, which is preserved by Diog. L. vil. 10, conferring were the tone of his this special honour on Zeno high in the teaching and the example which he to his pupils blamelessness of his private life. Greatly however as he was honoured by the Athenians, he steadily refused the offer of 1 and on one when an their citizenship , occasion, holding described as a citizen of official position, insisted on Citium-. This devotion to his native town, whether a genuine sentiment of the or assumed in order to avow his con viction of the worthlessness of all civic distinctions, seems to his have been appreciated by his countrymen, who erected statue :: in their market-place, where it was afterwards seen 4 by the elder Pliny . s extended Tn the later years of his life, Zeno fame beyond record of his the limits of Athenian territory; there is ample with Gonatas 5 the son of Demetrius intimacy Antigonus , we Poliorcetes and king of Macedon, and from one anecdote learn that he had attracted the attention of Phila-

1 had lost her delphus . Now that Athens completely freedom, in the interests of she became a hotbed of political intrigue throne: the various successive pretenders to the Macedonian of 7 but far the some beguiled her with the promise , by favour was most potent instrument to gain her gold. Thus, had become of while the internal of Athens purely to which municipal interest, the greatest services , the nephew of , could lay claim as meriting the the substantial gratitude of the Athenians were money presents

1 Pint. Sto. Rep. 4, 1. - Diog. L. vn. 12. :! Diog. L. vir. 6. 4 H. N. xxxiv. 19. 32. 5 See Zeno apoph. 25 and 26. 6 See note on apoph. 25. 7 190. So Demetrius Poliorcttes : Grote vol. xn. p. 6 INTRODUCTION.

which he had obtained for the treasury from ,

1 Ptolemy, and . \Ve cannot be surprised that, in such a period as this, Ptolemy and Antigonus, hoping to gain him over by personal condescension and munificent liberality, should have eagerly courted the adherence of one, whose influ ence like that of Zeno extended over a wide among the youth of Athens. It seems clear however that, in general, Zeno 2 avoided it be doubtful politics altogether ; and, although may whether his friendship for Antigonus may not have induced Zeno to espouse his political cause, we can at least be sure that the presents of the king were not accepted as bribes by the Stoic philosopher. If Zeno died in B.C. 264, he cannot have lived to see the conclusion of the so-called Chremonidean war, when Athens was besieged by Antigonus and defended by the joint efforts of Ptolemy and the Spartans, and it is impossible to say on which side his were enlisted, although lie is said 3 to have been a lover of Chremonides .

In voluntarily hastening his own end, Zeno only illustrated the teaching of his school. One day, on leaving the Stoa, lie

stumbled and fell, breaking one of his fingers in his fall. Regarding this as a warning of Providence, which it was folly to neglect, and convinced that the right course for a wise man is willingly to assist in carrying out the decrees of 4 , he returned home and at once committed . His personal appearance was evidently not attractive. Timotheus 5 in his work described him as , Trepl /8iW, wry necked, while Apollonius called him lean, rather tall, and of a dark 6 with thick and a weak complexion , calves, flabby flesh,

1 See Grote vol. xn. p. 214. 2 Cf. Seneca de Tranq. An. i. 7 Zenonem Cleanthem Chrysippunij quorum nemo ad renipublicam accessit. 3 Zeno apoph. 44. 4 Zeno apoph. 56. 5 seems to be known of the date of this writer: see Diet. Biog. These authorities are quoted by Diog. L. vn. 1. 6 x. An uncomplimentary epithet, cf. Theocr. 26 EO/J-^ KCL xa-P^fffffa Zupav KaXtovrl TV Traces, ia\va.v dXii^ai trrof, fyw 5^ /^6fos fj.(.\l\\upov. id. iii. 35 a p.e\a.v6xpw- INTRODUCTION. <

to have been the digestion. Tlie last-named defect is said diet 1 but this was HO doubt also recom cause of his frugal , In of his mended to him by his philosophical views. spite of his friends at habitual abstinence, he enjoyed the company relaxed with the wine a convivial banquet, where his severity his own beans are im he drank, just as (to use comparison) For the he seems to have been a proved by soaking-. rest, all dis man of few words, but quick at repartee, disliking and of a somewhat stern and play and etieminacy, genet-silly consideration for reserved cast of mind, though not without the wants of others.

Zeno. -2. Stoicisni as established by

to summarise those It will be convenient at this the evidence here collected establishes leading doctrines which Zeno into the Stoic school, with as having been introduced by isolated or to views of minor out paying regard to expressions philosophical importance. three Zeno divided philosophy into parts, , take them in the order named, as and , and we may being that which he recommended. but little attention, To the formal side of logic Zeno paid for the detection of error, rather regarding it as useful only of . The than as a means towards the establishment the elaborate treatment of doctrine of the four categories, and almost entirely to , uaco/xara and , belong r he is out of 7- >0 books which and, when we remember that 311 were devoted to said to have written no fewer than of his is not that he owed much logical studies, it improbable in this branch. In Zeuo s reputation to his performances of division of logic was the question eyes the most important this the standard of knowledge, although strictly speaking to He should rather be considered as belonging .

L. vn. 27. i tV iir^ielv Philemon ap. Diog. els apros, ofo, X <, Mup. - See Zeno apoph. 27. 8 INTRODUCTION.

held the that, though themselves are unerring, the im are often pressions they convey erroneous, and that only such are to be trusted as are in impressions themselves perspicuous. The ultimate test of truth resides in the strength of tension in the as impression, it strikes the -organ. If satisfied in this that the is such way impressioii that it must proceed from a real the mind in the , exercise of its ever present the activity grasps impression, and assents to it. This is the which Zeno expressed by saying that favraala Kara- is the criterion of truth . XrfTTTiKTj Diogenes Laertius, however, mentions certain TWV ap^aicrepot SrwiKeoV as teaching that is the standard of opOos Adyos truth. This passage has been treated by Hirzel (in whose judgment other authorities have as that Zeno concurred) proving and Cleanthes were the philo sophers indicated, and that Chrysippus was the first to in troduce the of the ^avravia Kara^rjirTiKij. The only other evidence, which he connects Zeno with by opOos Aoyos, is Philo virtuti studet quis p. 880 appearing in our collection as 157. To this have been frag. might added Arr. Epict. diss. iv. 8. 12 (frag. and Philodem. col. 8 4) irtpl euVe/2. (frag. 117). It is submitted, however, that these passages by no means prove the in as point question, against the positive testimony which attributes to Zeno the <j>avra<Tia KaraA.^?*?/. In Philo there is no of a question logical criterion at all, but Zeno is

1 As the matter is one of considerable importance, in order to relieve the notes, it is desirable to quote Stein s remarks (Erkenntnistheorie p. 174): Mit Zeller muss man annehmen, dass das KaraXrjvriKol ursprunglich emen aktiven Sinn halte, da der Tonns desselben Zweifels- ohne auf die didvoia eimvirkt. Andererseits muss man Hirzel wieder darm Becht geben, dass die 5u/oia sich unmoglich rein leidend verhalttm dass vielmehr das kann, auch einen passiven Beigeschmack hat. doch KaraX^^ Und lassen sich beide, sich scheinbar ausschliessende Stand- punkte vereimgen, wenn man in das Kara^Trr^bv den von uns vermu- teten Doppelsmn hineinlegt, den Zeno wohl absichtlich andeuteu wollte. Danach waren die Qavraola und Sidvoia bei der /cardX^s gleicherweise teils teils woraus sich aktiv, passiv, die schwankende Anwendung dieses Ausdrucks sehr wohl erklart." For the connection of ro^oj with KO.TO.- which is not Xiji/ is, however proved to be Zenonian, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vn. 408 dXXo yap avrrj ^v ij dirapa\\aia. run rt /coraX^^ Kal TUV aKaTa\7jirruv <f>avTa.<nwv Kara TO Kal fvapyts (vrovov iSiu/^a vapicrrarai. INTRODUCTION. 9 speaking of the state of mind of the wise man. whose is in perfect conformity with the of , and who has mastered all his impulses and passions. This is still more plain in the where are extract from Philodemus, op8ov<; Adyous coupled

1 with^o-TrouSat us Siatfecreis . The of evidence the other way must remain to be stated hereafter, but it may be re marked that, even if Cicero s testimony is discredited, the fact of the controversy between Zeno and Arcesilas is not thereby 2 as a and disproved . Again, if Zeno defined (pavraaia riVwcrts, discriminated between the truth of various <ai Taertai, he must

if have pursued the subject still farther : and, and memory are defined with reference to KaraA^i/a? an(l opinion is dis tinguished therefrom, it follows of necessity that he must have defined Kara/X^is itself. Still, even admitting to the full the

:i . in is ethical significance of opOos Adyos the passage Diogenes are not not thereby disposed of, for if Zeno and Cleanthes indicated by the words 01 apxaio repoi TWF STGHKCOV to whom that does this expression refer 1 Must we, then, suppose Zeno put forward two criteria of knowledge, rational (opOos of sense 1 Such a Aoyos) as well as the experience (/caTa A^i/as) conclusion would be inconsistent with the clearness and direct 4 ness of Zeno s teaching. The only way out of the difficulty is to adopt the of Stein, who regards the doctrine of be opOos Adyos as a concession to . op$os Adyos comes, in this view, a subsidiary and secondary criterion \ so that the results of thought must be confirmed by experience. in us the In other words, the potential notions inspired by corrected on the side divine Aoyos require to be completed and

1 For Epict. 1. c. see note on Zeno frag. 4. 2 It is satisfactory to find that Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 341, claims for Zeno the Qavraaia Kara^irriKT] on precisely similar grounds to those stated in the notes to frag. 11. 3 For this see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 2r> .l 204. 4 It should he mentioned that Corssen de Posidonio Ehodio (1878) as a blunder of or pp. 17 1<) proposed to eliminate ZTUIMV Diogenes of his authority, assuming that was speaking , the Pythagoreans, and . 5 the meaning of the word avo\fiirovffiv should in this case be pressed. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 25!. 10 INTRODUCTION. of sensible experience before they can attain to objective

1 actuality . From this point of view, then, it is not unreasonable to credit Zeno with the substance of the teaching recorded in

Cic. Acad. i. 41, 42. If so much be admitted, it is most un likely that he should have refrained from enquiring into the of knowledge and ignorance, which carry with them the doctrine of assent. On the other hand, it is most probable that he only touched lightly the doctrine of tvvoiai and not at all that of Trpo\T]i{/fi<;-. The remainder of the logical fragments are not of much importance as regards the positive teaching of the school. They include a nominalistic of the Platonic theory of , a curious statement of the nature of causation, a few scraps dealing with various rhetorical terms, a definition of geometry, some discussion as to the meaning of the word O-O AOIKOS, and a symbolical explanation, recorded by Cicero, of the different degrees of knowledge. Zeno s contributions to Physics have been unduly de preciated by some authorities but, while it is true that the development of this branch is largely due to Cleanthes, still a fair estimate of the fragments here collected will lead us to the conclusion that the essential groundwork of the Stoic 3 physical teaching was laid by the founder of the school . Zeno started from the that nothing exists but the material, inasmuch as body alone is capable of acting and being acted upon. All body is thus either active or passive and the material is itself the result produced from the

1 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 314, 31;">. - Stein holds that irp&\rj\f/is was substituted by Chrysippus for Zeno s 6p86s \6yos, in so far as the latter is concerned with (Erkenntnistheorie p. 269, 270). 3 See Stein, Psychologic p. 56 ami n. 77, whose reference to the number of fragments in Wachsmuth s collection is however misleading. As regards Zeno, Wachsmuth s fragments are only intended to be supple mentary to Wellmann s article in Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1873, so that no can be drawn from the fact that there are more physical than ethical fragments. It will be seen from the present collection that the are very nearly equal. INTRODUCTION. 11

operation of these two . The active is , as the and the passive is matter, (rod is more closely denned 1 which the whole of the , even liery , permeates is at once the as honey passes through the honeycomb. He embodiment of reason and of law, and the power which binds in one the various portions of the universe, who, though his is constant, appears in different forms in everything that exists. Nature, forethought and fate are thus only different for the same as nature he creates the world, and names being ; creates it in entire with the law of fate. Matter, on the other hand, is formless and indeterminate, though limited in extent, and can exist only in conjunction with some active it is itself its are ; although eternal, parts subject is about to change. The of the world brought by the action of God upon matter, whereby the creative through an intermediate watery stage passes into the four elements else is formed. tire, ,, and out of which everything the in- To explain the production of the thing by the celebrated terminflin"-O o of its elements, Zeno broached which is in effect a denial of the axiom theory of (cpucrts oV oXou, that two bodies cannot occupy the same . The world, however, will not last for ever, nor are we left without indications of its destructibility. In the inequality of the earth s surface, in the retrocession of the sea, in the mor we are and tality of every substance with which acquainted, race and all creatures lastly in the fact that the living can l)e shown to have had a beginning in time Zeno saw clear is destined to There proofs that the universe itself pass away. will come a time when by the unceasing law of fate the world and all that it contains will again be merged in the primeval lire, is formed from the only to be created anew, as the embryo is no less than seed. For the process unvarying never-ending ; a new will free a young world from its plagues, and a new Socrates will plead his cause against the same accusers.

1 remarks that there is no evidence of Zeno Stein, Psychologie p. -">8, having used the term TrceD/m in this connection. 12 INTRODUCTION.

The individual and the are thus partakers in the same decree of fate, but their likeness does not stop here. Not is the world a but also a it is more only unity, living unity ; over sentient, rational, intelligent, and wise. Two characteristics are especially prominent in Zeno s between God and system, first, his metaphysical contrast matter, and, secondly, his . He seems to have been animated by a desire to combine the results of later thought with the and directness of the early Ionian physicists. All is to be evolved out of fire : but fire is clothed with divine attributes, and sharply contrasted with the passive material on which it works. But Zeno did not observe that the combination is in self-destructive, and that with a materialistic system are superseded. It remained for his successors to eradicate the dualism which is here in volved, and, while thrusting into the background the points borrowed from , to take their stand upon pure and simple. Passing from the account of the to the descrip tion of the different component parts of the universe, we find that the of the sphere is occupied by a revolving belt of aether, in which are the , and , divine formed of creative fire. No void exists within the world, but outside it there is unlimited void; at the same time the world is kept together and preserved from dissolution into space by the attraction of its parts to the centre, in which the earth is placed. Zeno also explains certain natural phenomena such as eclipses, , and comets, and defines time and colour. We proceed to his anthropology, in which the account of the soul is most important. Although he apparently omitted to describe God, who is the soul of the universe, as fiery breath, yet the soul, which is the moving principle of the body, is defined as a warm breath, or (after ) as a sentient exhalation. For the soul is fed by exhalation from the blood, just as the heavenly bodies are by particles from the lower INTRODUCTION. 13

elements. Moreover, it is corporeal and grows up with the body, gradually expanding under the influence of external im reason is pressions, so that the perfect power of only developed at the age of puberty. Though it is a simple essence, its faculties are diverse, and being extended from the ^ye/xoviKov which is situated in the heart to the various organs of sense, the it is said to have eight parts, namely, the T/ye/xovtKoi/ itself, five senses, and the capacities of speech and generation. The soul entirely permeates the body, and at its departure the composite structure of soul and body is destroyed. The soul itself endures for a time after its separation from the body but is not immortal, and its condition after death is deter mined by the grade of purity to which it has attained. Such, from a of at least, seems to be a fair inference passage in which Zeno speaks of the separation of the of the former unholy from the holy and contrasts the misery with the blessedness of the latter. On his discussion of the need not dwell. voice, sleep, vision, and the seed we It remains to consider Zeno s attitude towards the popular he teaches that there .O Although,~ in the strict sense, is a certain amount is but one God, yet he admits that there a of the of truth in , as implying recognition The manifestation of God ubiquity of the divine presence. Here and in the powers of nature is symbolised by , and the water , who represent the aether, the air, of s he respectively. In his interpretation so as to the gives the reins to his etymological fancy, bring views. cosmogony of the poet into accordance with Stoic is inferred from the fore Lastly the of thought, which characterises the divine . Stoic Ethics, which are the crowning point of the system, come next in order. The aim and object of life is to live in which in other to live agreement with nature, is, words, to which nature according to : for this is the goal conducts us. It would seem that Zeno did not accurately since and explain what he meant by nature, Chrysippus 14 INTRODUCTION.

Cleanthes took divergent views of its character, but, recog the different branches of the nising the manner in which with one another 1 we reason Stoic system are interlaced , may to nature Zeno ably conclude that by the prominence given desired to connect his moral teaching with the divine creative 8 . Our first aether, which permeates the universe impulses, and virtue however, tend not to virtue but to self-preservation, the since neither of them is impossible in the child or brute, of reason. These natural im possesses the informing power of and in their pulses require the guidance reason, proper subordination to it is to be found the condition of , which may be described as the unruffled flow of life. For but and no external happiness nothing is required virtue, diminish circumstances, nothing but what is morally , can this we the satisfaction belonging to the virtuous. In way are led to discriminate between dyaOd and KO.KO.: only virtue and vice or their accessories can be classed as and evil; is indifferent. everything else, even life and death, morally But this classification does not exhaust the capacities of rd

Kara The of virtue is and for all time : <f>vai.v. does not the but, just as the supremacy of the monarch imply so the are absolute equality of his subjects, a8ta<opa ranged between virtue and vice in a graduated scale of negative and and the middle oc positive value (dira^a. aia), place being Ka6dira i.e. such as an cupied by TO, a8td<opa, havpg even or odd number of hairs in one s head. Everything ciia is Kara and possessing diraia4 possessing <j>v(riv, everything a is At the same time aia is not permanent, vapd <j>v<nv. is at one time Kara attribute of any aSta ^opov, for that which

1 Cf. Stein, Psychologic p. 13. the is 2 Hirzel, Untersuchungen n. p. 108, thinks otherwise and point of , Clearlthes certainly a doubtful one. If Zeno spoke only the connection of ethical with may have here, as elsewhere, shown as Then KOIVTI <f>v<ru. Chrysippus physical doctrine by explaining 0i><m would have united both views. If this was development, there assertion that Cleanthes added would be some pretext for Stobaeus ry while the of Laertius would jvffei to the definition, authority Diogenes 260. remain unimpaired. See however Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. INTRODUCTION. 15

under certain 4>vcriv might, circumstances, become Trapd (frvmv. Herein lies the vital distinction between u Sta^opa and ayaOd, for the latter are unaffected by any possible change of circum stances: a virtuous action can never be contrary to nature. Still, although there is not an absolute, there is yet a practical permanence in the value of certain things, which in the absence of some paramount objection (= Kara Trporjyov^vov or Aoyov uvev TreptoTao-fcos) we shall always choose in preference to their contraries. These then are the Trpo^y/xeVa. Cor responding with this classification of objects, we have a scale of actions ranging from KaropOM/ (virtuous action) to a/*ap- rrjfjLO. (sinful action), wherein K.a6-f]Kov answers to the of is thus d8id(f>opa. Every KaOrjKov directed to the of rd

KUTO. and the avoidance of rd <v<ru . <f>v(TLV Trapd The doctrines of KaOrJKov and Tpor/y/xeVov are not to be regarded as an excrescence foisted on to the Stoic system in consequence of the pressure of the of opponents, but are an and necessary portion of the original structure as established by Zeno. The apparent inconsistency, which the of these application doctrines sometimes produces e.g. in the remarks on marriage, often disappears when we remember that the 7roA.iTta proposed to establish a socialistic under which the of would be reduced to importance d8id<f>opa a minimum.

Zeno held further that virtue is one and indivisible, springing from the -qyefjLoviKov, of which it is a taxed and permanent condition. Consistently with this, he maintains that all sinful actions are equally wrong, since all alike imply an aberration from a standard, which excludes increase or diminution. None the less, however, can we distinguish between different manifestations of virtue or separate : virtue itself is identical with (^poV^o-is), and , , and are the particular applications of wisdom in diverse spheres. Whether Zeno also distinguished between two different kinds of ^poV^rts, one as the ground work, and the other as a particular species of virtue, must 16 INTRODUCTION.

infers that he but remain doubtful. Hirzel (I.e. p. 99) did, Plutarch s words do not necessarily lead to such a conclusion, such an to and we oughtO to hesitate to attribute inconsistency Zeno without direct evidence. No doubt the Stoic school four generally put forward <^povr?o-i?, SiKaioa-vvrj, inasmuch as Zeno s was dvSptio. and croj^poo-vvT?, but position are left to of admittedly modified by his successors we judge in in which his views entirely from the two passages Plutarch, he is mentioned by name. was introduced The theory of the , which by Zeno, constitutes one of the most distinctive features of Stoic ethics. Whereas Plato and Aristotle agreed in admitting the legiti be macy of certain emotions, Zeno declared all alike to and unnatural movement sinful, as being due to an irrational four chief emotions in the soul, or an excess of impulse. The fear and and Zeno in their are , grief, desire, describing rather dwelt, if we may s statements, of the irrational the the psychological effects impulse upon soul than on the mental conditions which produce them. The this will be discussed in special difficulties surrounding subject the notes to the fragments themselves. The whole of mankind was divided by Zeno into two one that of the wise classes, entirely distinct from another, and that of the foolish. Every action of the wise man is the fool vice. prompted by virtue and every action of by wise man Hence it is generally true that the performs every action well, and the fool fails in everything. Friendship, of and freedom, , riches, , the kingship general in to the wise ship, even success culinary operations belong man alone: he is never mistaken, never regrets what lie has free from done, feels no , and is absolutely every form of . At the same time, it is clear that Zeno of to that of contemplates a from the state folly is characterised the wisdom as practicable; this advance by emotional and delusive affections purgation of the soul from under the influence of reason. Even though he ultimately INTRODUCTION. 17

emerges from the conflict with success, the wise man still feels the scars from the wounds he has received during its course, and is often reminded of his former evil impulses after he lias completely suppressed them. Finally, since death belongs to the class aSta c^opa, suicide is justifiable in the wise man, if circumstances prescribe such a course. Jt is obvious that a teacher, whose ethical views were of the nature, which we have just indicated, could not rest satisfied with the existing constitution of civic life in . Equally unsatisfactory to him was the aristocratical com munity of Plato, with the sharply drawn dividing line between the guardians and the rest of the citizens. For this reason , the god of friendship and concord, is taken as the presiding of Zeno s state, a state which in no way corresponds to the Greek TTO AI?, but comprises the whole of


a . mankind livingO togetherQ like herd of cattle In this state there will be no temples, law-courts, or gymnasia; no work of human craftsmen is worthy of divine acceptance; the state must be adorned not with costly offerings, but by the virtues of its inhabitants. Zeno likewise advocates an abolition of coinage, a community of wives, and a thorough of the current system of . The remaining fragments, dealing mainly with particular do not to be summarised here. , require

3. Zeno s relation to 2 evioufi philosophers.

The opponents of the Stoic school were fond of accusing- its members of plagiarism and want of originality. Zeno is the keen Phoenician trader, pilfering other men s wares, and 2 passing them off as his own : if all that belongs to others were withdrawn from the voluminous writings of Chrysippus, we 3 4 should have a blank . in Cicero page , , represents

1 Cf. Newman, Politics of Aristotle, vol. i. p. 88. - Cf. Diog. L. vn. 25. 3 Diog. L. vn. 181. 4 Acad. i. 43. The same is put forward by Cicero himself against Cato in the 4th book of the de Finibus. H. P. 2 18 INTRODUCTION. the views of Zeno as merely immaterial changes in minor while points of the genuine Academic doctrine, the Stoic only repeats current opinion in speaking of

1 distantia" . Even a as "a Cynicis tunica slight acquaintance these with the Stoic system- is sufficient to refute gross is vindicated when charges: indeed, its originality abundantly several centuries 011 we point to the influence it exercised for the intellectual life of Greece and *. At the same time his it must be admitted that Zeno was largely indebted to and Heraclitus for predecessors especially to the bricks and mortar with which he constructed so splendid an the edifice. _Of in particular he appropriated kernel, It when we look at while discarding the husk. is, however, as a whole that we are able to appreciate the skill the with which its incongruous elements were fused, and a of detail. The Stoic unity of thought which pervades variety wise man is as far removed from Diogenes in his tub, as is the of Heraclitus. all permeating aether from the fiery element in which We proceed to discuss in detail the various points is most marked. Zeno s obligation to previous thinkers strongly

A. To Antisthenes and the Cynics.

The resemblances between Zeno and the Cynics are natu in their ethical doctrines. rally to be found chiefly Physics their nomina- were almost entirely neglected by the Cynics, and for listic logic was not of great importance Stoicism, although we may observe in passing that both schools maintained in 3 similar terms that Plato s ideas were a mere fiction of the doctrine of brain and had no objective existence. The Stoic life in accordance with nature finds its historical origin in the

1 . 121. 2 "Die Stoa war vielmehr die veitaus selbstaiKlitfste Hcbule der 10. nacharistotolisrhen Philosophic," Htein, Psychologic p. 3 Antisthenes ap. Sinipl. in Cat. p. 54 b u II\CLTUV, iirirov ^(v bpd iinroTTjTa. dt oi x opCi. Cf. Zeno frag. 23. INTRODUCTION. 19

. Like teaching as well as in the life of Diogenes Zeno, Aiitistlienes teaches that virtue is in itself sufficient to secure

is a but an Evil happiness-, that nothing Good virtue, nothing but vice, and that everything else is indifferent". Accordingly no cannot Diogenes held that death, since it involves disgrace, 4 it is not to learn, that of be an Evil . Hence surprising many we the Cynics put an end to their by suicide, though and on record have sayings both of Aiitistlienes Diogenes 5 . Virtue itself is denying the legitimacy of such a course in wisdom and described, after Socrates, as consisting pru

"is the safest it dence: "," says Aiitistlienes, wall; At the same time the cannot be undermined or betrayed"". of Greek education is futility of the ordinary course strongly 7 virtue and vice draws insisted on . The distinction between with it that between the wise and the foolish; the philoso few from a condition border pher s wallet preserves a chosen 8 ing on madness . that We are told, on the authority of Diogenes Laertius", is to be Zeno adopted the Cynic form of life. This probably taken with some limitation, as the incidents recorded of his

it. It is that life only partially agree with certain, however, 1 and for this his life was one of abstinence and simplicity ", reason he became the butt of the comic poets, who thus un a consciously testified to his merit. Ephillus, wise would later Stoic writer, declared that the man cynicise, and that Cynicism was a short cut to virtue". It should, the Stoic ideal was however, always be borne in mind that

] Kara. ru" ^ovui> Tors Diog. L. VI. 71 btov o\ v avrl rC:v axM" 0;W eXoue^ors ei! Zeno trag. 120. rjt> 5cu,u6i/u>s. - Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 12-"). Diog. L. vi. 10.1. Zeno frag. 12*. 4 129. AIT. Epict. Diss. i. 24. C>. Zeno frag, 5 H>1. r>. Cf. Zeno Zeller Socrates, etc. Eng. Tr. p. 319, n. frag. 6 Diog. L. vi. 13. Zeno frag. 134. 7 Diog. L. vi. 103. Zeno frag. 1C.7. * Diog. L. vi. 33, 35. Zeno frag. 148. 11 Diog. L. vi. 104. 10 Diog. L. vn. 2d, 27. 11 Diog. vi. 104. vn. 121. 9 9 20 INTRODUCTION. humanised and elevated to an extent entirely incompatible with Cynicism, mainly owing to the attention which was

1 bestowed on mental culture . Turning to the views of the two schools in applied moral , we find a curious agreement as to the of the sexes : Zeno and Diogenes both held that, in the ideal state, there should be a community of wives, and neither saw any 2 thing revolting in marriage between the nearest relations . At the same time marriage and the begetting of children are recommended for the wise man both by Zeno and Antisthenes, and apparently we must regard this as intended to apply to the existing condition of life, in which marriage was a civil 3 institution . Both teachers allow to the wise man the passion 4 of , as he alone will be able to select a suitable object : both maintain that the virtuous alone are capable of genuine 5 friendship . Lastly, Zeno copied Antisthenes in his treatment of the Homeric poems, and particularly in explaining certain ap parent as due to the fact that the poet speaks at one time Kara. &6av and at another KO.T" aXrfOftav". The al legorising method of interpretation is common to both, and was afterwards developed to an excessive degree by Cleanthes 7 and Chrysippus . Though we have thus seen that Zeno s ethical teaching is largely founded on Cynicism, we must not forget the many points of divergence. Thus, for example, we find the Cynics 8 honour and wealth as absolute these treating ; things,

1 The of in the two schools is well put by Sir A. Grant (Ar. Eth. vol. i. p. 317 ed. 3). * Diog. L. vi. 72. Dio. Chrys. x. 29. Cf. Zeno frags. 170 and 179. These passages are from the iroXireia of Zeno, which is supposed to have been written while he was still an exponent of orthodox Cynicism. Chry sippus, however, is reported to have also held this repulsive doctrine. 3 Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 171. 4 Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 172. 8 Diog. L. vi. 12. Zeno frag. 149. 6 Dio. 53, 4. Zeno 195. ~ Chrys. frag. See Cic. N. D. n. 63 foil. 8 See the passages collected by Zeller Socrates, etc. E. T. p. 304. INTRODUCTION. 21

to to the class of a. according Zeno, belonged 7rpo>;y/Aei Again, to take their attitude towards the popular religion, we know that Zeno expressly countenanced divination, while the ex istence of prophets made Diogenes think man the most foolish

1 of animals .

B. To Heraclitus.

There can be no doubt that Zeno borrowed some important principles in his physical teaching from the writings of He raclitus, and particularly from his account of the cosmogony. in the doctrines of There is, however, a difficulty comparing the two schools minutely, owing to the obscurity in which our knowledge of the Heraclitean is involved, and which is often increased by the doubt as to whether some particular doctrine belonged equally to the Stoics and the philosopher of , or whether some later development, introduced by the former, has not been wrongly ascribed to the latter by our authorities. For instance, it was at one time stoutly main tained that the conflagration of the world was not taught by Heraclitus but that it was first propounded by Zeno, although to it is not the contrary opinion seems now prevail". Again, as Aristotle entirely clear whether we are to class Heraclitus, does :i with the Ionian from hi.s , early physicists, starting are to that all tilings are tire, or whether we regard this principle as a metaphysical abstraction, metaphorically shadowing forth the eternal flux of all things, a view which is 4 more in accordance with Plato s criticism in the .

is a However this may 1)6, Heraclitus essentially hylozoist, fire as the rarest \vlio, following Anaximenes, chooses being element, and insists on the continuity of change in order to escape from the mechanical theories of and Em-

1 Diog. vi. 24 and contrast Zeno frag. 118. - See the elaborate discussion in Zeller, Pre-Socr. Phil. Eng. Tr. n. pp. fi 2 77. See however Bysvater, Jonrn. Phil. i. 42. Met. i. 3. 8. This is the view of Ueberweg p. 40 and is also held by Dr Jackson. 4 views. Zellers position (p. 20 foil.) combines the two 22 INTRODUCTION.

and the Parmenidean on pedocles on the one hand, immobility is him the of the the other. The Xoyo? vvos with expression truth that nothing can be known but the law of mutability, the of the harmony in difference, which he likens to stretching 1 TO . law he calls a bowstring This yvco/zij, 81/07, cipoppcn?, T ov KOI and o ZeiV, but these Trepiexov r//A(2s Xoyixdv <j>ptVT)pc<>, terms are mere metaphors and we should be wrong in straining in the law of their philosophic import : they represent, fact, there can be no doubt that change and nothing more. Still, the use which Heraclitus made of his formula Xoyos was one which attracted the attention of the chief points in his system he was familiar with of Zeno. As a of Cynicism

an ethical : neither of these Xoyos as a dialectical and principle him in his own aspects of Xoyos was discarded by broaching, the of the Heraclitean Xo he system. Yet, through help yo?, to was enabled to take one step further. Just as Plato gave a the Socratic V7ro 0co-is or general conception metaphysical Xo existence in the form of the , so did Zeno elevate the yo? and of Antisthenes from its position as a criterion for thought :i and movement . duty to that of the physical cause of being Heraclitean Xo with The Stoic deity is, like the yos, provided many names, such as God, Mind, the all pervading Aether, the other hand it Fate, Forethought, and Zeus, but on belong* \Ve have here set to an essentially later period of thought. which is us forth the teleological view of Nature, regarded 4 a . The creating all things out of itself for good purpose in so far as Stoics, at least after Cleanthes, are also pantheists Even they acknowledge that God and the world are identical. where Zeno followed Heraclitus most closely there are essential differences in treatment. The tire of Heraclitus becomes

1 of the Heraclitus frag. 50 ed. Bywater. Hiiv.el finds here the origin Stoic roVos, but this is very questionable. - For a detailed statement see Krische, FonohllllgttO p. 368 foil. 3 Hirzel The comparison is suggested by Hirzel n. p. 42. But very much underestimates the influence of Heraclitus on Zeuo, as Heinze has the pointed out. It is quite contrary to the evidence to attribute clitean tendencies of the Stoa solely, or even mainly, to Cleanthes. 4 Cic. N. D. n. 58. INTRODUCTION.

for this distinction is unknown to the aether or -n-vp T^VLKOV and rarefied. Instead Ephesian and is thereby spiritualised of three elements the Stoics have four, according to the writers. at re practice of post-Aristotelian Cleanthes, least, of a garded these four elements merely as graduations TWOS, The doctrine of irdrra entirely alien to Heraclitus.

is that of and uAAoiWis ftel replaced by /jLTa(3o\i], gives way to the characteristic theory of the mixture of substances, In the differences between known as Kpouris Si oAojr. stating the two schools we have indicated how the were built upon Heraclitus. The remaining resemblances are com It was a natural to both paratively unimportant, corollary

1 cosmos . Zeno seems to systems to maintain the unity of the as an dva- have adopted Heraclitus definition of the soul this exhalation as imbibed fo /u ao-os, but, instead of regarding he that the soul was from the outer air (TO -rreptexov}, taught blood. Where Heraclitus fed by emanation from the warm of the wise regarded dryness as an essential characteristic the Stoics rather looked for warmth or evKpcuria. Lastly, soul , we may observe that Heraclitus attributed to he counselled submission to the the soul, and that in Ethics in ac common law and the regulation of speech and thought

5 cordance with the demands of nature .

C. To Plato and Aristotle.

It has often been observed as a remarkable fact that the im influence exercised both by Plato and Aristotle on their and mediate successors was comparatively small. Zeno Epi in the of curus sought the groundwork of their ethics systems in their Antisthenes and , and followed physics, He with surprising closeness, the pre-Socratic philosophers raclitus and . Indeed, the Peripatetic school itself the new showed no great vitality after Tlieophrastus,

1 Stob. Eel. i. 22. 3 b p. 11)9, K . - Heracl. frag. 74, By water. 3 Stob. Floril. in. 8-1. 24 INTRODUCTION.

of Arcesilas and bore no resemblance to that founded by Plato, and Antiochus owed more to the Stoa than to the old which Academy he professed to resuscitate. In the post- Aristotelian philosophy, taken as a whole, we find a universal to tendency materialistic views, a striking decline of interest in intellectual purely , as sin end in itself, and a general agreement in confining the area of speculation to the two of questions the standard of ethics and the logical criterion. However we are to explain this , and even if we consider inadequate the explanation of Zeller, who attributes this result to the loss of and the consequent concentration of thought on the needs of the individual, we are more concerned with the fact itself than with its possible causes . It is enough to say that the system founded by Zeno was in no sense the offspring of those of Plato and Aristotle, although in many points it presupposes their existence. In the case of Chrysippus we may go further, for there is no doubt that his logic was largely a development, and that not a very happy one, of the Aristotelian doctrine of the . Zeno, however, although the titles of several of his logical treatises have come down to us, was not considered to have attention paid great to this branch of philosophy. The principal contribution made by Zeno to the theory of is the knowledge establishment of the <aj/rao-t u KaTaXrjirTiKrj

as the : criterion in this, the essential point, whereby the con of the vincing power impression is made the test of its reality, is due entirely to Zeno, but he was obviously influenced by the Aristotelian treatment of ^ai/racri a, in which it appears as 2 is "decaying sense," and more accurately defined as "the movement resulting from the actual operation of the sense 1 . in the faculty" Again, Zenonian of memory and art there will be found a familiarity with the progres sive stages in the growth of knowledge, as enunciated by

1 This question is discussed in Benn s Greek Philosophers (Preface). - Rhet. i. 11. 1370 a 28. 3 de An. in. 3. 42!) a 1. INTRODUCTION. 25

1 Aristotle and his at is in , terminology, any rate, recognisable a logical fragment preserved by Stobaeus". Diogenes Laertius introduces his discussion of the Stoic physics by stating that the two upx at/ posited by the school were God and Indeterminate Matter : here we have not only the well-known Aristotelian distinction between the formal and the material cause, but also his description of matter as 3 that which is entirely formless and contingent . The aether, the so called quinta essentia of Aristotle, of which the heavenly bodies were composed, has its representative under the system of Zeno, who held that the circumference of the world was surrounded by a moving belt of aether. Cicero puts into the mouth of professed Antiocheans, and, when speaking in the character of Antiochus, himself makes the charge that Zeno s Ethics are identical with those of the Academy, and that the only change is one of terminology. This is developed at length in the fourth book of the de Finibus, where Cicero points out the inconsistency of denying that external contribute to happiness, while admitting that they have a certain positive value. There is considerable in the objection in so far as it lays bare a weak point in the Stoic stronghold, but, if it is meant for a charge of plagiarism, it is grossly unfair. In fact, as has been remarked, Antiochus, who himself stole the clothes of Zeno, was always anxious to prove that they never belonged to Zeno at all. As we know, however, that Zeno was a pupil of Polemo, it is not unnatural to find that he was to some extent influenced by his teaching. Thus, life according to nature was one of Polemo s leading tenets, and Clement of has preserved the title of 4 one of his books which deals with this subject . Zeller well

1 Met. i. 1. Anal. Post. n. HI. - Zeno frag. 24. :i vi. 3. a 20 6 TL Metaph. 1029 \(yu f\^ 77 KaO avrriv ur/re ^re Troabv /J-r/Tf aXXo /ot^Sec Xe-yercu oh wpiffrai TO ov. 4 Cic. Fin. iv. (>. 14. Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. p. H04 Sylb. Polemo himself is represented as saying to Zeno : ov \av6dixis, c3 Tir/vuv, TCUS nai TO. KX^TTTUV s ^ KTJTTCUCUS trapfiffpiwv Ovpais, doyfj.ara <poLi>iKiKi2 fj.tra^<pifvi>i (Diog. L. vii. 25). One of the doctrines, which were in this way appro- 26 INTRODUCTION. sums up the extent of Academic influence when he says that "such points in as the Socratic building of virtue on knowledge, the comparative depreciation of external goods, the retreat from sensuality, the elevation and the purity of moral , and, in the older Academy, the demand for life according to nature, the doctrine of the self-sufficiency of virtue and the growing tendency to confine philosophy to prac tical issues all these were questions for a Stoic full of in terest." Amongst the particular points, in which Zeno seems to have felt the influence of Plato, may be mentioned the doctrines of the cardinal virtues (frag. 134) and the irdOi) (frag. 142) and the explanation of the world us wov l/xi/a^ov (frag. 62).

We have endeavoured briefly to indicate certain leading points of doctrine in which Zeno was influenced by his pre decessors, leaving minor resemblances to be pointed out in the notes.

4. The writings of Zeno.

A list of the titles of Zeno s works is preserved in Diog. L. vii. 4, but is admittedly incomplete, as the same writer himself makes additions to it in his exposition of the philosophical views of the Stoic school. This list was probably derived by Diogenes from two distinct sources, as it is divisible into two separate portions. The first or main division gives the names of 13 (or 14) works, of which 6 deal with ethical, 4 with 3 and miscellaneous physical, and (or 4) with logical subjects ; then follows a kind of appendix giving 4 (or 3) additional titles. Apollonius Tyrius has been with much probability suggested as the authority to whom the main division is due*, priated by the Stoa, appears to be the third definition of fyws preserved by Andronicus irepi Tratiuv c. 4 as vTrypeaia. tit&v eh vtuv KaTaKocr/j.r)ffiv nal

: OeCiv KCL\UI> cf. Plut. ad priu. iner. 780 D llo\(^uv t\eye rbv tpura dvai. { in)peerLav m vtuv fjrifj.f\fiav (Kreuttner, Andronicus p. 41)). 1 Stoics etc. p. 3SW. - See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Anti^onos p. 107 : Zeller and Wachs- muth adopt Nietzsche s hypothesis (Kheiu. Mus. xxiv. 185) that all the lists in Diog. are, with certain exceptions, derived from Demetrius of INTRODUCTION. 27 for not only does Diogenes in several places cite him by but also Strabo 2. name (e.g. 2) (xvi. 24, p. 7-~>7) expressly mentions a work of his with the title -KLVO.^ rwv drro Z^ rwo? KCU TWV who with the ^lAoo-o^coi/ /3t/3/\tW ; supplied Diogenes appendix has not been determined. The works, of which any record lias survived to us, may be divided into four classes :

T. Logical. this not mentioned in the (1) Trepi Xoyov. From work, the division general catalogue, Diog. L. (vn. 39. 40) cites triple its which of philosophy and the order of arrangement for study, Zeno recommended. According to Susemihl, this book con tained Zeno s epistemology, but, being superseded by the in canon. writings of Chrysippus, lost its place the is known of this work but the (2) KaOo\LKd. Nothing /Xe : thinks that xaOoXiKa. teoiv title (Diog. 4) Wachsmuth irepl is the title of a single work. In Stoic Ae is (3) vrept Aeewv (Diog. 4). terminology ^ts defined as as to which is e/x^?/ <$>wr] dyy^u/u./xuTos opposed Aoyos UTTO 8tavotas e VI r. It is 0-ri^avTiK-rj /<7rep.7ro/AeV?7 (Diog. :>G). pro the defini bable, therefore, that this work dealt specially with tion of terms, and to it may perhaps belong the fragments in which Zeno explains the proper meaning of o-oAotKi^etv (frags. Jahrb. fur Philol. 30 and 31). Wellmann (Xeue 107, p. 478) ac suggests that this treatise gave rise to the oft-repeated cusation made by Cicero that Zeno s in philosophy that had were solely of a verbal character, and Chrysippus defended his master from a similar charge in the work TTC/K

TOV Kiyuws Kfxprj&Oai Zijvwva rots oVo /xacru . This is identified Zeller and (4) Tcxvr) (I->iog. 4). by

works Magnesia, who is specified by name with reference to Xenophoirs fiir Philol. thinks (DioR. L. ii. 57). Susemihl (Jahrbiicher 12,5, p. 741) which that che Diogenes catalogue comprises only those writings of Zeno were included in the Stoic canon, and that the TroXtret a, therex"^ e/w??, while their was and the Siarpi^al were treated as apocryphal genuineness admitted. 1 See however on frag. 23. 28 INTRODUCTION.

Wellmann with the ipoynicij r^\vrj of $ 34, while Wachsmuth KOL KCU writes TC^VT; Xvo-fis tXcy^ot ft as one title. The third course, which at first sight seems the most natural inasmuch

as Tf\vr) bears this special meaning from Corax and downwards, is to regard it as an art of . The ob jection to this view is that it is inferred from Cicero de Fin. iv. 7 that no work of Zeno bearing this title was known to Cicero or his authority, but too much reliance need not be placed on this, as it is clear that Zeno s logical treatises had been cast into the by the more elaborate performances of Chrysippus. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence to show that Zeno did to some extent busy himself with rhetoric (frags. 25, 26, 27, 32), and though Zeller suggests that definitions of the SiT/yrjo-is and Trapa Sciy/m may belong to some other Zeno, this does not apply to the passages in Sextus and .

(5) XvVtis xal eXcyxot ft (Diog. 4). Possibly owing to the influence of Stilpo the Megarian, Zeno may have devoted some attention to this branch of logic, which in general he

1 regards as of less importance : see frag. 6. II. Physical.

(6) TTtpl TOV oXou (Diog. 4) seems to have been the most important of Zeno s physical writings. Diogenes refers to it as containing Zeno s views about the elements (vn. 13G) and the creation and destruction of the world (ib. 142), and quotes from it the statement that there is only one world (ib. 143). It also contained an account of the eclipses of the sun and of moon (ib. 145), and explanations of the phenomena thunder and lightning (ib. 153).

i. 5. 15. IS. (7) TTcpt <ucrcws cited by Stobaeus Eel. p. 78, for Zeno s views on the subject of cI/^ap/Acvr; : Krische (p. 367) would identify it with the last named treatise.

1 This is the only work which deals with the formal side of logic, so that Stein s argument in Erkenntuistheorie n. <>8! might have been put more strongly. He follows the old reading and speaks of two treatises,

TexviKai Xi crtis and HXeyxoi. /3 . INTRODUCTION. 29

ovcri identified "VVellmann (8) 7Tpt as unnecessarily by (I.e. with oXov and is p. 442) and Susemihl irepl Trepl (jbvcreco? quoted by Diog. (134) for Zeno s definition of the two first principles, God and Matter.

: a treatise (9) Trepl a-rj/jLCMv on divination (Diog. 4). Thus pavTiKr) is defined in Stob. Eel. n. 122, 238 as eVio-Tr/^ TWV O.TTO &ewv 0f(j>p i]Ti.K-t) arjfjifiMV r/ Sat/xovwv TT/JOS avupwTTLVov ftiov Tuv. This is no doubt the work referred to by Cic. de

Div. i. 3, 6 sed cum Stoici omnia fere ilia diflunderent quod et Zeno in suis commentariis quasi semina quaedam sparsisset. Its position in the catalogue makes against PrantTs hypo thesis 1 who classes it as a work. , logical known its title is re (10) -n-epl oi//ews only by (Diog. 4) garded as logical by Stein. (11) HvOayopLKa. (Diog. 4) classed by \Vachsmuth as a physical book owing to its position in the catalogue, but nothing else is known concerning it. III. Ethical. Here must (12) Trepl TOV KaOiJKovTos (Diog. 4). belong s definition of from the terms of which Zeno duty (frag. 14-")), Wellmann conjectures without much probability that we should identify this treatise with the following.

(13) TTtpl TOV Kara (frvaw (3iov (Diog. 4). crew? (14) irepl 6p/j.rj<; rj Trepl dvOpwirov e^t (Diog. 4). Diogenes quotes the Zenonian definition of the from this book (vn. 87); Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. in. 580) to this title - octo, and proposed separate reading r) Weygoldt this further identified with adopting vrept dvOpwirov <^>i;o-eo)s Trept is not an work. v, but the latter anthropological the defini (15) Trepl TT0.0WV (Diog. 4) containing general tion of emotion and the discussion of its several subdivisions, pain, fear, desire and pleasure (ib. 110). seems to have been the most (16) 7roXtTta. This the most often of generally known, as it is certainly quoted, in of Zeno s writings; it was also one of the earliest point

1 n. 689. i. p. 458. So also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie 30 INTRODUCTION.

time, having been written while its author was still under the Plutarch informs us that it influence of Cynicism (Diog. 4). was written as a controversial answer to Plato s . The allusions to it are too numerous to be specified here in

1 detail . From its in the (17) Trcpt VO/AOU (Diog. 4). position to the side catalogue this work must have belonged political that it treated of of ethics, and Krische s supposition (p. 368) the of nature is therefore rebutted. Themist. Or.

of the of Zeno but to l>e xxin. p. 287 A speaks vopoi appears referring generally to Ids philosophical precepts. TrcuSetas cf. 167, (18) Trtpl rfjs E\Xr)v(.Krj<; (Diog. 4): frag. which however is stated to belong to the TroXtrcto. To this book (19) cpumK?/ TCX^ (Diog. 34). pro bably belongs the interesting fragment (174) preserved by Clem. Alex, relating to the behaviour suitable to young men. a similar as we are ( 20) Siarpi/Jai (Diog. 34): work, told by Diog. whose statement is continued by the passages from it Sextus. As we are told (frags. 179, 180) quoted by by Plutarch that something of the same kind was contained in this and the last three works the TToXireia, we may believe that were written in close connection with it, as shorter appendages dealing with special topics, and before Zeno had worked out the distinctive features of Stoicism. From the general meaning which cf. Plat. 37 D TUS of "lectures, discussions" (for Apol.

/cat TOUS seems to have assumed //.<is 8iTpt/3as Aoyovs) 8tuTpi/3r/ if trust the special sense of a short ethical treatise, we may the definition of (Rhett. Or. ed. Waltz, t. in. p.

e o-rt Siu! OCTUO-IS. Zeller s 406) &La.T/>iftri /Spa^co? or//zaro5 rflucoiv identification with the aL i and Susemihl xP" improbable,

1 A summary will be found in Wellmaun 1. c. p. 437 foil. As regards its Cynic tendencies Susemihl observes: Wer den Witz machte, er sei bei ihrer Abfassung wohl schon iiber den Hund gekommen, aber noch nicht iiber den Schwanz, schrieb eben damit dies Werk einer etwas spiitern Zeit, zu friihesten etwa als er von Krates zu Htilpon iiberge- gangen war. INTRODUCTION. 31 believes that the Biarpi/Bal was excluded from the being an earlier Cynic work. title is (21) 7J0LKO. (Diog. 4). The somewhat doubtful, as Wachsmuth reads aTroyLU r^oFei ^uaTa KpaT^ros yOiKa. as a and would emend f ^ai f r single title, Wellmann r) xP ^ixa: more probably however it was a collection of short ethical

TV. Miscellaneous.

(22) Trpo/^A^/xuTwv Qfj.r)piKwv e (Diog. 4): we learn from r Dio. - 4 that Zeno wrote on the Chrys. ):5, , and , and that his object was to show the general consistency of by explaining that a literal meaning was not to be applied throughout the poems, which ought in many instances to be interpreted allegorically. That lie in some cases proposed emendations may be seen from

Strabo vn. 3. 6, cf. ib. i. p. 41, xvr. p. 1131. Krische p. 392 shows that there is no foundation for the suggestion that Zeno attributed the Tliad and to different authors. Er- (23) TTept 7ro<.t]TLK fj<; uV/)oacrcos (Diog. 4). Stein,

kcnntnistheorie n. GS9, speaks of this work, the 7rpo/3A. Qp.r)p.

and the Trept EAA^i . TruiS. as an educational , and regards them as an appendix to the TroXireta.

(24) uTTo/Ai Ty/Aoveu/xttTu KpuTvyros (Diog. 4) also mentioned Athen. iv. 102 B as which by Z?;Vtovos tt7ro/u.vr/^/.oi eu/Aara, from Persaeus is said to liave made extracts. There seems little

doubt that this was identical with the xpeicu mentioned in Diog. vi. 91 in connection with Crates, or that Wachsmuth is right in referring to this book the story of Crates and the cobbler

(frag. 199). Aphthonius definition of ^petat runs thus: tt?ro-

i oa i ITTL TI ui /jir rjfjio\ /j,a TO/Aoi tvcrro^ws TrpocraiTroi/ a^epo/xerov. r tTTco-ToXat Floril. ed. c. This (2- )) (Maxim. 3Iai, G). reference was first pointed out by Wachsmuth, see frag. 190. The passage in Cic. N. D. i. 36 (cum vero Hesiodi Theo- goniam interpretatur) led Fabricius to insert among his list of s { tis HcnoSoi; Zeno writings (ill. p. oSO) Tro/xi Ty/xoVerpa Tr/v 32 INTRODUCTION.

1 iav and there can be no doubt from the statements in Oeoyoi , and the other Scholiasts 2 that Zeno s labours extended to Hesiod as well as to Homer. It is, however, impossible to say in what work these fragments appeared, and we do not feel much inclined to accept Krische s view (p. 367) that the allegorical explanations of Hesiod were worked into the irtpi

:i oA.ov . not to the May they belong Trtpi TTOIIJTIKT/S uKpouo-ea>s? It remains to call attention to Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 9. 58

S. P. uAAa KCU ul TOJ p. 245, p. 681, STOHKOI Xcyowrt ZTJVWVL irptanp rifa a TOIS yeypu.<f>6an fJiij paSiws itrirpiirovai ftaOr)Tal<; dvayi-

8c8a)KO(7l 1 yVU>CTKf.LV p.7/ OV^l TTflpaV TTpOTCpOS yVljaiCJS (f)tXo<TO<f)OLfV, but similar suggestions of esotericism are made against all the post- Aristotelian schools, and especially against the New Academy. (Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. 11.)

5. Zeno s style.

The fragments which survive of Zeno s writings are not sufficient to enable us to form any satisfactory opinion of his style, and it would be unsafe to generalise from such scanty . We shall therefore only attempt to point out those characteristics about which there can be no doubt.

The later Greek philosophers troubled themselves but little with the graces of literary ornament. Philosophy had now become scientific in its treatment and ceased to be artistic in form. Zeno was no exception to this rule, and was satisfied if he presented his arguments to his readers with directness and perspicacity. In this respect, he has been successful in avoid 4 he himself to the ing obscurity , though lays open charge of

1 See Flach, Glosseu und Scholien zur Hesiodischen Theogonie, p. 29 foil. - Cf. also Diog. L. vni. 48, Minuc. Felix Octav. xix. 10 Chrysippus Zenonem interpretatione physiologiae in Hesiodi Homeri Orpheique carminibus imitatur. a Zeller who formerly supported this view (Stoics p. 40) now thinks 4 otherwise (Ph. d. Gr. in. 1. 32). 4 Fronto ad Verum Imperat. i. p. 114 ad docendum planissimus Zenon. Cf. Diog. L. vn. 38?<m fdv otv avrov KOI ra irpoffyfypa/j./j.^va INTRODUCTION. 33

abruptness and want of finish. To this tendency was clue his custom of his couching arguments in syllogistic formulae, which often served to cloak a somewhat 1 obvious fallacy . This formally logical style subsequently grew so habitual with the Stoics that they earned for themselves the title of StaXeK- riKoL Cicero (N. D. in. 22) especially observes on Zeno s fondness for certain "breues et acutulas conclusiones," and several examples of these are to be found in his remaining fragments. "That which is reasonable is better than that which is unreasonable: but nothing is better than the world: therefore the world is reasonable." "That thing at whose

the dies is : departure living organism corporeal but the living organism dies when the breath that has been united with it

: therefore this is departs breath corporeal : but this breath is the therefore the soul is soul; corporeal." "That is altogether destructible all whose parts are destructible : but all the parts of the world are destructible; therefore the world is itself destructible," cf. also frags. 59, 60, 61, 129, 130. Passing to quite a different characteristic, we remark in Zeno s a certain style picturesqueness and love of simile, which perhaps may be regarded as traceable to the Oriental influence 2 of . his birth-place Particularly striking is his that those who are in a state of -n-poKoirrj may from their dreams discover whether they are making progress, if then the and emotional imaginative part of the soul is clearly seen dispersed and ordered by the power of reason, as in the of a transparent depth waveless calm (frag. 160). Zeno, Cicero D. n. says (N. 22), "similitudine, ut saepe solet, rationem concludit hoc modo." "If tuneful flutes were pro duced from an olive should not we regard some knowledge of

ev oh us ovdeis "ZTUIKUV TroXXd, e\a.\r)crei> TUV in which passage Stein, Psychologie n. 2, finds evidence of " die Klarheit und Gediegenheit der iSchrit ten Zenos. " 1 In Cic. N. D. n. 20 the Stoic claims that such arguments "apertiora sunt ad reprehendeudum." Elsewhere Cicero calls them " contortulis et quibusdam minutis conclusiunculis nee ad sensum pennanentibus." Tusc. ii. 42. - Cf. Wellmann 1. c. p. 445.


the olive I" In like flute-playing as inherent in (frag. 63). manner he uses the simile of the minister in a royal court to and likens explain his doctrine of the Trpor/y/xeW (frag. 131), his ideal commonwealth to a herd grazing on a common pasture (frag. 162). but also in ex Not only in elaborate comparisons single touch be seen. Thus pressions may the same picturesque character is said to be the fountain of life (frag. 146), emotion and the unruffled a fluttering of the soul (frag. 137), happiness flow of life (frag. 124). It will be remembered that Cicero, or his authority, con the inventor of new stantly taunts Zeno with being words, 1 this to mean and new words only . When scrutinised, appears not so much that he was a coiner of new expressions, as that he words for the purposes of his system appropriated already aside in existence as part of his special terminology. Putting and which stand on rather a TrpoT/y/AeVov diroTrpo-rjyiJ.fvov, different footing, we may instance irpoKOTn;, evapycia, (rvyKaru- KaTo and rvTroxris : <9eo-is, p0w/xu, KarttA.T/i//is, Ku.6fjKov, Wota(?), not due to Zeno. none TrpoAt/i/as is certainly Yet, although are of these words are new coinages, KaToA^i/as and KO.BTJKOV in of his statement. instances specially selected by Cicero support observes: KOI Diog. Laert. x. 27 speaking of Chrysippus CKCI VWV TO. rd fjiaprvpia roaavra eoriV, ok /xovtov yffieLV /3i/?Ata, Kal KO.6a.TTtp KOI Trapd ZTJVWVI eoriv evpflv irapd ApioToreAei. this assertion. The existing fragments however do not justify under whicli Finally, although doubtless the circumstances more the fragments have been preserved render this tendency not be noticeable than it otherwise would l)e, we shall wrong The school in attributing to Zeno a love of precise definition. afterwards became famous for their definitions (cf. Sext. it is not unreasonable to Pyrrh. II. 205 212), and suppose Instances of this that the habit originated with the founder.

1 Cic. Fin. in. 5. 15. Tusc. v. 32. 34. Legg. i. 38, etc. Cf. Galen tri ( de diff. puls. vm. 642 ed Kiihn ZTJXWI- 8t 6 Kmei j irpbrtpov tffos iv TO?S KaivoTOUf iv re /ecu uirfpfiaiKiv ri> TUV E\\rivuv 6vt>fw.ffi.v. INTRODUCTION. 35 f will occur passim. Tn fact, his writings in their general character were dogmatic and terse rather than discursive and in the is of polemical. The longest extract following pages dubious authenticity, and therefore for a specimen of the style of our author we would refer to the description of youthful modesty in frag. 1 74.

| G. Cleanthes.

In discussingO the dates of Zeno s life we have seen that is reason to believe that Cleanthes was born in the there O<rood year E.G. 331, and if so he was only live years younger than Zeno. We also saw that he lived to the age of 99 and presided over the Stoa for 32 years from B.C. 2G4 till Ids death in B.C. 232. Against this computation there is to be taken into account the fact that Diogenes (vn. 176) states that lie lived to the age of 80 and was a pupil of Zeno for nineteen of the years. Unless we are prepared to reject the authority a papyrus altogether, we have in Diogenes account either 1 different tradition or a stupid blunder . In any case, Cleanthes was well advanced in life when he became head of the Stoic School.

He was born at , a town in the , but at what age he came to Athens or under what circumstances he be came a pupil of Zeno we have no information. His circum stances were those of extreme poverty : he is said to have been a boxer before he embraced philosophy, and the story is well known how he earned his living by drawing water at night, in order to devote his to Hence the nickname daytime study". of was to him his while his <t>pttvT/\T7s given by opponents, friends in admiration of his laborious activity called him a " second Heracles." The man s mind is shadowed forth in these anecdotes : the same earnestness and thoroughness which

1 Ilohde 1. c. p. G2 2 n. 1 suggests that Diogenes subtracted the 111 years passed under Zeno s tuition from the years of bis life, but this is hardly credible. - L. vn. 108. Dio.?. 32 36 INTRODUCTION.

characterised his life are no less apparent in his teaching. Whatever he did was marked by energy and completeness and was grounded on deeply-rooted conviction. Philosophy with him was not merely an intellectual exercise, but far fervour led him more a religious enthusiasm. This religious of the to regard the theological side of philosophy as highest the of the divine importance, and, feeling that praise majesty should be set forth in something higher than sober prose, his of the genius expressed itself in poetical compositions greatest merit. It is easy to believe that a man of this character may is some evi have proved an unsuccessful teacher, and there dence that under his presidency the Stoic school was in danger cf. L. vn. 182 OUTOS of losing ground, Diog. (Chrysippus) iroXXwv ovi8icr0eis VTTO TIVOS ort ov)(l TTOpd Apiorcjvi fitTo. (T^oXa^oi, OVK OLV HlS t TOIS TToXXoiS, ?7T, TTpO(TCi\O\ , (f)L\O<TO(^rj(Ta. ap the unfavourable parent want of success possibly stimulated estimate with which his written works were received by 1 Stoa was now assailed various antiquity . The fiercely by and its opponents its ethics by the Epicureans, logical was more than theories by Arcesilas. Skill in controversy was to be ever needed, if the position won by Zeno s efforts maintained. Herein lay the special strength of Chrysippus, who was very probably employed in defending Stoicism during 2 s life and who Cleanthes in fine his predecessor , surpassed 3 to in . ness and subtlety, even if he was inferior him depth in Most suggestive, in this view, becomes the passage Diog.

a> *cai TroX- L. VII. 179 SiT/vex$77 (Chrysippus)... Trpos K\edv6r)v

ll/ T " s

SiSacrKaXias > Xa*as eXcye /xoV^s rfjs TWV Soy/u.arwv XP!?

1 There is no direct evidence for this, but the whole of Diogenes account implies it. 2 Cf. L. vii. 182 5 rbv K\edi/0oi s SiaXtKn- Diog. TT/X>S Ko.rf^aviffTa.fj.fvov /cat ir^Tra.vffo, elire, rbv Kbv, irporeivovra. aiV<p cro</>icr/u.aTa, Trapt\KUV Trpftrjiv- I/ TO S fO S ravra Tfpov airb rCiv irpa.yfjLa.TiKbjTipwi , 7?M & irporlOti. 3 " So Hirzel n. p. 180 Kleanthes war keine die Begriffe zerglie- dernde, sondern eine anschauende Natur, er war wohl minder riihrig aber 171 vielleicht tiefer angelegt als sein Schiller," and Stein, Psychologic p. " Kleanthes erscheiut als der rauhschaalige, miihsam stammelnde, aber tiefe Denker, Chrysipp dagegen als der feinere, leichtbewegliche, elegant vermittelnde Scbonredner." INTRODUCTION. 37

8e a7ro8ei eis avrov eup^cmv. The anecdote leads us to infer that Chrysippus was conscious of a want of originality in himself, and a want of combative force in his master. The position of Cleanthes among the early leaders of the Stoic school lias quite recently been subject to a considerable modification in current opinion. He has been generally re garded as merely the exponent of his master s teaching, and as having contributed no new views of his own to the de- velppment of the system. This opinion is not without justi fication in the ancient authorities. Diogenes Laertius ex pressly asserts that Cleanthes adhered to the same tenets as his predecessor (vn. 1G8), and that he did not object to be called an ass, declaring that heysvas oJy able to bear Zeno s burden (ib. 170). This estimate of his powers was for some time acquiesced in by modern investigators, so that even

" Zeller of : says him (p. 41) Cleanthes was in every way adapted to uphold his master s teaching, and to recommend it by the moral weight of his own character, but he was in capable of expanding it more completely, or of establishing it on a wider basis" (see also Krische, Forschungen, pp. 417 and

418). Xow however a reaction in his favour has set in, and from a closer scrutiny of the notices concerning him the opinion has been formed that " his contributions were more

" distinctive and original than those of any other Stoic

1 (Encycl. Brit. Art. Stoics) . In a question of such im portance it is singularly unfortunate that the hand of time has dealt so hardly with him, not only in the actual amount of the fragments which have been preserved to us, but also in their relative importance for his philosophic system. For one fragment of supreme value such as frag. 24 we have six or seven trifling of the names of the ,

1 Hirzel has carried this view to an extreme, which the do not

" warrant. At n. p. 187 he curiously says : Da wir aber uichts unver- sucht lassen diirfen, um eine eigentiimliche Lehre des Kleanthes heraus- zubringen." On the other hand, Windelband, writing as late as 1888,

" " says of Cleanthes : als Philosoph ist er unbedeutend gewesen (Miiller s Handbuch, v. 292). 38 INTRODUCTION. of so extravagant a character that it is hard to credit their seriousness. The happy chance that has preserved to us tli.e Hymn to Zeus is counterbalanced by the consideration that of tension two or three we only know of his theory through passages. Cleanthes divides philosophy into six branches, but in the division of reality this is only triple Zeno, logic being subdivided into and rhetoric, physics into physics ethics and and , and ethics into politics.

: at least it In his estimate of logic he resembles Zeno in his seems to have played only a subsidiary part system, number of his recorded works on this judging both from the out of a total of and from the in subject (about 10 56) the which remain. Four are significance of fragments only of the of any importance, and one of these, his criticism it will be Platonic idea, is involved in such obscurity that convenient to defer its consideration for the notes. As it is was the clear throughout all his teaching that Cleanthes most advanced materialist in the Stoic school, so we find that basis than his epistemology rests on a still stronger empirical that of his predecessor Zeno or his successor Chrysippus. Zeno had not defined <avTcuria further than by describing it this as an as an impression . Cleanthes explained actual material concavity impressed by the object, an ex favour with There is planation which found no Chrysippus. ascribes to Cleanthes also high probability in the view which rasa" a the authorship of the "tabula theory, theory made celebrated in owing to its adoption by is like a Locke, namely, that when a man is born his mind blank sheet of parchment ready to receive a copy. At least we know of no other Stoic philosopher to whom the intro duction of this extreme result of sensualistic views so properly in to belongs. Since Chrysippus, express opposition Cleanthes, it is less that defined ^arrcurux as erepoiWis rfyc/^oviKov, likely he should have propounded a theory which in its very terms carries out the more materialistic doctrine of his opponent. INTRODUCTION. 39

We have therefore, in accordance with Stein s view, included the passage of Plutarch, which attributes the doctrine to the Stoics in general, among the fragments of Cleanthes. Stein,

1 however, goes further . Zeno had conceded this much to rationalism, that we derive directly from God the capacity for abstract thought, and that certain notions are the pro duct of this potentiality when actualised by experience. In an ingenious and closely-reasoned argument, whose force it is difficult to reproduce within short limits, Stein contends that this position was thrown over by Cleanthes. According to the latter, the capacity given us by nature is solely that 2 for moral and not for intellectual activity . The in

" God himself does not, as with Zeno, arise from a certa

" animi ratio but rather from induction founded on empirical 3 observation . The conclusion is that Cleanthes is a thorough going advocate of . But a divergence from the rest of the school in a matter of such importance ought not to be assumed on mere inference resting on ambiguous state ments, although were this doctrine explicitly ascribed to Cle anthes in a single passage we should not hesitate to accept his bent of it, as being in entire consonance with general mind. What then is the evidence which Stein produces apart from the passage of Cicero just referred to, which is by no means conclusive ? In the first place he appeals to two passages which prove that moral impulses are transmitted to and iis from our parents and implanted in us by nature", in lays stress on the fact that intellectual powers are not cluded. This, however, is only negative evidence, and for are referred to 106 and 100 in the positive we frags. ; first of these we read that the uneducated differ from the

brutes only in shape, and in the second that the undiscerning opinion of the many should be totally discarded. Surely

these grounds are insufficient to support the conclusion :

1 Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 322 32H. - Cleanth. frags. 82 and 36. 3 Cleanth. frag. 52. (Cic. N. D. n. 13.) 40 INTRODUCTION.

Plato himself have might greeted these sentiments with ap But a probation. more serious stumbling-block remains in the oft from quoted passage Diog. L. vn. 54. If, as Stein himself admits, Chrysippus substituted TrpoAr^i? for the Zenonian Cleanthes optfos \oyos, must of necessity be included in the term apxaiorepoi riav STUHKWI/, for there is no one else to whom the 1 words could . apply Were further positive

" evidence of Cleanthes concession to " rationalism required, it would be as reasonable to surely supply it from frag. 21

faxy* -fc Mepos pfTcxovras T//ias >^v^ouo-^at as to deduce the contrary from frags. 100 and 106. For these reasons we feel bound to withhold assent to Stein s hypothesis, until some weightier proof is put forward to support it. Cleanthes was also involved in a controversy with reference to the known as o sophism KvptcvW and first propounded by the Megarian Diodorus. This sophism was concerned with the nature of the and Cleanthes tries possible ; to escape from the in which Diodorus would have involved him by deny that truth is ing every past necessary, or, in other words, by that asserting since that which is possible can never become it is for the impossible, possible past to have been otherwise, in the same way that it is possible for a future event to occur even that event will though never take place. Besides this we learn that he introduced the term XCKTOV in the sense of that he left KarrfYoprjp.a \ definitions of art and rhetoric, and that he the names to a explained given certain kind of slippers and a drinking-cup. The first five of the physical fragments need not detain ua as with here, containing, they do, one exception, merely a restatement of positions already taken up by Zeno. The referred to is the exception introduction of Trvev/xa as the

1 Stein himself supplies the materials for his own refutation. At 267 in with a similar " p. dealing question he says : Ohne Not sollte Niemand unter dpxaiorfpoi andere Stoiker als Zeno Kleanthes und ChryKipp verstehen." Chrysippus is here excluded by the nature of the case : the inference need not lie stated. - See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 827. INTRODUCTION. 41

truest of the description divine permeating essence, which Zeno had characterised as aether. With frag. 17 however we are on a different footing. Cleanthes teaches, according to Cicero s that the world is account, God, and it is significant the same that, although doctrine is attributed by him to Chrysippus (N. D. i. 39), no such statement is found with to regard Zeno (ib. 36). Zeno had indeed declared that God of the permeates every part universe : would he have gone so far as to identify the universe with God? It is true that we find his ova-Lav among fragments (frag. 66) Se Oeav rm> o\ov KOO-/J.OV /ecu roV but this is not oi-pavov, conclusive. Not only the general cast of the expression, but also the addition of the words /cat rov ovparov, make us hesitate to ascribe to these words their full pantheistic sense. However, even if Cleanthes was not in his master s following footsteps, he was only carry Zeno s ing teaching to its logical conclusion. The dualism of God and Matter was inconsistent in a materialistic system. But Cleanthes went further. Teaching that God creates the world through the medium of the four elements 1 and , teaching that these elements themselves do not remain stable but are in a restless and continual mutation, he was led to search for the cause of this ceaseless movement. The question may be in put another form, why did God create the world? The answer was found in a comparison of the structure of indi vidual creature is tilings. Every produced at the proper time means of certain of by proportions the soul s parts, which are found in the seed. The soul, however, is material and is braced that tension which is up by elsewhere described as "a stroke of tire." This tension is ever varying and is the cause of movement in the human frame. Now, since the individual is a of the universe 2 the , cause of movement in the cosmos must be the tension which permeates all its parts.

1 Not three in of spite Hirzel s Excursus n. 787755. See Stein, Psychologic n. 118. 2 This is the probably meaning of 1. 4 in the Hymn to Zeus where 3 note. For the doctrine of the macrocosm and the microcosm in see Stein s general Appendix to Psych, pp. 205214. 42 INTRODUCTION.

Thus the phenomenal world is created and again destroyed by of the the successive phases in the ever varying tension fiery and with the breath, which is at once identified with God universe . of the human soul is in the As the T/ye/^oviKov placed of the breast, so did Cleanthes teach that the ruling part world is in the sun, to which is due day and night and the to this his inves of the year. He was led opinion by that can tigations in . Observing nothing exist without warmth, he inferred that warmth constitutes is to the the essence of things. Since however warmth given whole world and to each individual thing from the sun, the of the world. In the sun is the sun must be the -r}yep.oviKov in its and at the fiery breath found purest form, conflagration, when the world is destroyed, the sun will assimilate to itself moon and stars and all the heavenly bodies. If Aristarchus he therefore taught that the earth revolves round the sun, the which is the was guilty of for displacing earth, hearth of the world. The sun is fed by exhalations from the the . The sea, and moves in an oblique course through stars are formed of the same fiery substance as the sun, and, as the sun is the cause of life to everything, its essence must to be akin not to the earthly tire, which is destructive, but the creative. As the sun strikes the world with his rays, he is called a plectrum. Sun, moon, and stars are alike conical in shape. Cleanthes proved that the soul is material by two syllo on the mental resemblance between gistic arguments, founded the soul with the parents and children and the of that he even body. So far indeed did his materialism extend of maintained that the act of walking was the Trvetyj-a feet. In other he seems to from the TJycfioviKov to the respects have concurred in Zeno s psychology, teaching that the

1 For the tension-theory in general see Stein, Psychologic, pp. 73 and 74, nn. 109 and 110. The notion of TO^OI is not entirely unknown to 103. Zeno : cf. Zeno frags. 56, C7, INTRODUCTION. 43 reasoning powers are developed by external impressions, and that all exist after death till the time of the general con flagration. His views on zoology comprise a statement that the pig was provided with a soul to keep him fresh for and a curious anecdote proving the of ants. To the theological branch of physics Cleanthes devoted considerable attention 1 but in no line , practice sharp dividing can be drawn between physics and religion, since in the Stoic- system they necessarily overlap. It is hardly necessary to analyse the Hymn to Zeus, but it may be observed that Cleanthes refuses to admit that evil is due to the divine , a remark which must be taken in connection with the statement of Chalcidius that, while Chrysippus identified fate with forethought, Cleanthes distinguished them. Five dis tinct reasons are given for the : (1) the ascending series of organisms from plants to man, which shows that there must be some being who is best of all, and this cannot be man with all his imperfections and frailties, the (2) foreknowledge of coming events, (3) the fruitfulness of the earth and other natural blessings, (4) the occurrence of portents outside the ordinary course of nature, and (5) the

movements of the bodies. i.e. regular heavenly Zeus -rrvp aeiwov is the only eternal god; the rest are perishable and will be destroyed at the eKTrvpwcrts. The popular religion is a of truth, but requires interpretation if \ve would understand its real significance. Thus, the are an ; Homer, if properly understood, is a witness to truth; the very names given to Zeus, , , , and are indications of the hidden meaning which is veiled but not perverted by the current belief, and the same is true of the of Heracles and . Tt is difficult now-a-days to enter into the spirit with which the Stoic school pursued these etymological fancies. At it is hard not to acquiesce in Plutarch s opinion (see

1 Cic. N. 1). n. 03, in. (>. 44 INTRODUCTION. frag. 55), who attributes them to TreuSia and cipujvcux. But, if this is so, it is impossible to account for the extreme , which was expended upon them. Rather, having once taken up the position that the popular belief can only be explained by Stoic methods, they were often driven to defend it by argu ments which they must themselves have perceived to be of questionable validity. For example, Cleanthes may not have been satisfied with the derivation of Dionysus from Stavvcrut, but his explanation could not be disproved, and he was bound to explain the name somehow, since, so long as it remained

1 unexplained, it was a standing objection to his method . The number of ethical works attributed to Cleanthes, 32 out of a total of 56, shows that he paid considerable attention to this branch of philosophy. Yet, in the main, he seems to have accepted the principles laid down by Zeno, except in those cases where his physical innovations demanded a separate treatment, and many of the fragments which have come down to us deal rather with the practical than with the theoretical side of . This agrees with what we are told as to the titles of his books (see infra, p. 52). Denning the aim of life and happiness in the same manner as Zeno, Cleanthes laid special stress on the agreement with the general law of nature, while Chrysippus is said to have emphasised the necessity for agreement with human nature no less than with nature in general. This view is thoroughly in consonance with the general of Cleanthes teaching. One of the most striking and important of his doctrines is the parallelism between the macrocosm of the world and the microcosm of the individual. The more, therefore, that man brings himself into harmony with the spirit which breathes throughout the universe, the more does he fulfil the role to which he is destined. The same spirit may be traced in the

1 The etymologies of Plato in the are quite as bad as any of these, but they are professedly in part at least playful. The most recent exposition of this is. by Mr Heath in the Journal of xvn. iy*2. INTRODUCTION. 45

lines in which the subordination of the individual to the decrees of Zeus and of destiny is so forcibly advocated. Cleanthes is perhaps the author of a distinction which subse quently became of some importance whereby happiness is de scribed as and the 1 CTKOTTO?, attainment of happiness as reXos . The doctrine of roVos was applied by Cleanthes, with im portant results, to two branches of his master s ethical system, namely, the, nature of virtue and the emotions. Zeno had identified virtue with ^/aoV^crt?, but Cleanthes, while retaining the intellectual basis which Zeno made the groundwork of to virtue, sought explain its character more precisely. Again he had recourse to his physical theories. Every body contains within it a material air-current with ever-varying tension. When this tension is strong enough to perform its fitting duties it is regarded as strength and power, and this and as to strength power applied different spheres of activity rise to the four virtues gives tyKpareia, dvSpeta, SiKatocrwr/, and It will be observed that here cr<D<t>po(Ti!vr]. eyKpuVeia occupies the which position by Chrysippus and his followers is assigned to Thus Cleanthes fortities <poV?7o-ts. his main position, that of tension is strength the necessary starting-point of virtue, a by tacit appeal to the authority of Socrates, who had pointed to ey/cpuTera as Kp^Tris aper^s. A recurrence to the same teacher may also be recognised in the approbation with which his identification of TO oay^epov with TO Succuoi is cited. To return to when the tension is TWOS , relaxed, a weakness of soul follows, and in this weakness is to be found the explana tion of the TrdOrj. Thus the essence of virtue and emotion, which Zeno had left unexplained on the physical side, is traced to a single source, and this source is the same power which is the origin of all movement and life. The of TO application VOS to the -n-dO-r] leads us to the con sideration of another question, not indeed directly raised by the fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, but having an important

1 See however Hirzel n. p. 557. 40 INTRODUCTION. bearing on our general view of their ethical doctrines. What in the classification of position do the irdOrj occupy goods? the other Zeno classified rjSovrj and therefore presumably irdBr) the and the reason is not far to seek. He among aSta<opo, distinct from because have regarded irdOr) as vice, they nothing 10 tViTtto-eis rwv to do with ignorance (Plut. Virt. Mor. ras iv iraOwv Kdl Tas (r^oSporrjTa? ou <ao-i yiyvea-Bai Kara rrjr KpLiriv

KaKia. or TO KaKta? is KOLK.OV, 77 TO dfiaprqTLKOv). Only {JLCT^OV an v- according to Zeno, and irdOtx: is neither, but rather eViye Ta Zeno 139 and for the vrjfj.a. (Cf. eVtytyvo/zeva *cptcr(rtv frag.

cf . L. vn. distinction between cViyevi/^/AUTa and /zcTexovru Diog. all the and not to 95.) That this applies to irdOrj merely the considerations. In ijSovT] is made clear by following frag. 169 Zeno recommends the rational use of wealth OTTO? a8tfj

8id6eo-LV 1 5 OVTS ocra Kal dOavpaoTov Trpos TaXXa Ttjv TT}? i/ VX ? X CO-TI TOIS Kara w5 tVi TroAu aXd p-TJTf ai(r^pa fA.v <f>v<riv 8 fvavTLiav 88oiKOTs Xo /cai TOVTWJ/ TWV /itT/Sev ycu p.rj <f>o(3w field of This shows that the dSta<opa are the for refer to Cic. Tusc. in. 77 nihil ?, and Xwnj we may esse malum non sit si enim <juod turpe htf/enti persuaseris...et tainen non satis mihi videtur vidisse hoc .Cleanthes, suscipi esse summum aliquando ae(/ritiulinem posse ex eo ipso, quod It is malum Cleanthes ipse fateatur. noteworthy, moreover, that Cleanthes, who is allowed to have been the severest 1 KUTU ctvai of declares <j>v<rtv opponent pleasure , y8ovr)v /A^TC does not venture to T<3 but p.ijre d^tav t^eiv V ^iw (frag. 88) class it as Kaxov. The result of this discussion is that Zeno

and Cleanthes did not class Xvn-q and <o /8os with Ka*ca, and therefore Wachsmuth cannot be right in attributing to Zeno 2 classification is a passage in Stobaeus where this implied.

1 in the text are intended to Zeller, Stoics p. 2H7. The remarks of 8iiested obviate the difficulty as to the classification ijdovr] by Heinxe, dc Stoicorum affectibus p. 37. - See Wtichsmuth s Stobaeus vol. 11. p. 58. That this question was to have held much debated appears from Cic. Tusc. iv. 29. Some appear 1. Trdfloj is that irciflos was KCLKOV but not ncudo. (Stob. C.), because Kiv^ffit but KaKia is 5iA6Tis (Cic. 1. C. 30). INTRODUCTION. 47

That this view did not continue to be the orthodox view of the

school after their time is possible, but to pursue the subject further would be foreign to our purpose. The uncorrupted impulses given by nature tend towards virtue, and, when they are suitably developed, wisdom founded 071 firm apprehension, so that it can never be lost, follows in due course. Secure in the possession of virtue, the wise man partakes of the same excellence as God. In the treatise Ttfpl -ij^ovfj^ Cleanthes seems to have en gaged in a spirited controversy with the Epicureans, and to have attacked their moral teaching, just as lie perhaps assailed their in the physics work TTC/CU aro/xwv. Pleasure is a mere

useless ornament : it possesses no value whatever, nay, it is absolutely contrary to nature. If, as we are told, pleasure is the ultimate of it goal life, was an evil spirit which gave to mankind the of faculty wisdom. He sarcastically likened his opponents position to an imaginary picture in which Pleasure, seated on a throne in gaudy apparel, is ministered to by the form virtues, who her willing slaves, declaring that this service is the sole reason of their existence. to those Passing fragments, which seem more strictly to to the or belong TrapaivfTixos uVo#ertKos TOTTOS (i.e. the region of applied morals), we notice that Cleanthes frequently refers his to the precepts general principle, which is a leading character istic of Stoic morals, namely, that virtuous conduct depends not on the nature of the deed but on the disposition of the agent. The same action may be either vicious or virtuous, according to the motive which prompts its performance. To many of the subjects which fall under this branch separate treatises were devoted, among which are the books Trepi ev- tTO /3ouA.laS, ?> aS, KCpl XP Tfpt </>00V/t>l TTtpi TifJi-fjS, TTfpl So^TJS, K.r.X. To the TTfpL <tAias, Trepi (rv/u.7ro<riou book Trepi. ^apcros we three of may assign the extant fragments (frags. 97, 98, 99) all of which are preserved by Seneca in the de Beneh ciis. of The theory (frags. 93 and 94) may belong either to the or the <tAi a?. 100 103 all in Trepi apwyr/<; Trepi Frags. 48 INTRODUCTION. verse and one in hexameter ouht to be referred to the

TTf.p One solitary fragment attests the political studies of Cle- anthes, to which at least four of the works in the catalogue must be referred.

The result of our investigation has been to show con clusively that all those doctrines which are most character istic of the true essence of Stoicism were contributed by Zeno and Cleanthes. To Zeno belong the establishment of the

logical criterion, the of Heraclitean physics, and the introduction of all the leading ethical tenets. Cleanthes revolutionised the study of physics by the theory of tension, and the development of pantheism, and by applying his materialistic views to logic and ethics brought into strong of three the mutual interdependence the branches. The task of Chrysippus was to preserve rather than to originate, to reconcile inconsistencies, to remove superfluous outgrowths, and to maintain an unbroken line of defence against his adversaries. Although it might seem to many that this less ambitious role requires less brilliant capacities in its per former, yet Chrysippus was commonly regarded as the second founder of the Stoa, and the general opinion of his contem in the line ei poraries is aptly summed up p.rj yap rjr Xpvcwnros vii. reason of this has OVK av ?iv STOCI (Diog. L. 183). The been already indicated. The extraordinary fertility of the writer commanded admiration even where it failed to win

assent, nor was his dialectical skill (Diog. L. vii. 180) a matter of small moment. Though logic was only the pro the of the paedeutic of philosophy, it was battleground fiercest controversy. Vitally opposed in other respects, Epicureans and Stoics here at least were allied in maintaining the universal of the possibility of knowledge against scepticism the New Academy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the foremost champion of dogmatism should have taken the highest place in the Stoic triad. INTRODUCTION*. 40

7. Tlie writings of Cleanthes.

The relation of the poetical to the prose writings of Cleanthes has not been accurately determined, and the evi dence does not enable us to decide whether the former were published separately from, or in conjunction with the latter. The only indication we possess is in frag. 49, in which Cleanthes describes as being peculiarly adapted to theological subjects. Yet the only book in the catalogue with a dis title is tinctively theological the work 7re.pl Otuv, and there is direct evidence that this contained etymological explanations of the of names the gods, and that part of it, at any rate, was written in prose, Krische p. 422 supposes that the Hymn to Zeus was a poetical supplement incorporated with this treatise, but such treatment would surely have produced highly incongruous results. It is possible that we ought to separate Cleanthes the philosopher from Cleanthes the poet, and to infer that works published by him in the latter capaeitv were not included in the list of his philosophical treatises. At the same time we should remember that Chrysippus (Galen. et plac. Hipp, Plat. p. 315) and Posidonius (ib. p. 399 pr/cra? T Kal rraXaiwv Tror^riKas Trapa.ri9f.Tai urTOptas 7rpaeu>i /j.ap- rupoucras of.? /Wya) were accustomed to freely interpolate poetical quotations in their prose writings, and Cleanthes may have composed his own norilegia, just as Cicero trans lated from the Greek where the poets failed him

(Tusc. D. n. 2G). A catalogue of the titles known to us is not otherwise the subjoined ; where indicated, source of reference is Diog. L. vn. 174, 175.

I. Logical.

(1) Trepi tStW. For iSta cf. Ar. Top. i. 5, p. 102 a 17 : the essential attributes of a thing are its 1810. : thus

8e/m/<os is an i8tov of man.

(2) TTf.pl TUJV uTropoii .

(3) Trepi 8iaA.eKTf.K77S.


this is rather than (4) Trepi TpoVajv. Probably logical rhetorical. To this book be referred (5) Trepi Kanjyopij/LtaTajv.. may frag. 7. xi. 467 471 (6) Trepi /xeToXi^ews (Athen. d, b). II. 19. Krische (7) Trepi rov xupieiWros (Arr. Epict. 9). this the title but p. 427 n. gives to work Trepi Swarwv, Epict. title distinctly contrasts Chrysippus work bearing the general with a treatise by Cleanthes on the particular fallacy (KXeuY^T/s & iSia Comni. I. 18. yeypa<e Trepi TOVTOV), Wachsmuth, p. be the same work as the ars rhetorica (8) Trepi Texvrjs ni^y mentioned in Cic. Fin. iv. 3, but if so it is out of its place in 5 of the the catalogue, where it appears between nos. 4 and physical books.

. and the book (9) Trepi TOT) Xoyou y This following ap pear in the catalogue among the ethical works.

(10) Trepi TricrT7;/x7/s. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 722, counts among the logical -but works the books Trepi \povov Trepi aio^Tytrews and Trepi 80^775, omits, probably by an oversight, the book Trepi TPOTTWV. He also observes that from the number of books treating of the theory of knowledge Cleanthes must have displayed more activity in treating of the subject than the remaining frag ments would lead us to suppose.

II. Physical.

(1) Trepi xpoVov.

<t . (2) Trepi rtys Z^i/wvos <jioAoytas /?

(3) TOW HpaxXeirou e?7y7;crewi S*. Cf. Diog. L. IX. 15 re eicriv oeroi avruv TO KOI l^rjyrjvrai <rt;yypa/x/u.a. yap KO.I o HOVTIKO? KXea re *cai HpaKXet^s r^? 2</>cupos o STWIKOS. The influence of Heraclitus on Cleanthes has been variously estimated. Hirzel is the chief advocate in favour of it, holding e.g. that Cleanthes agreed with him in his hypo- INTRODUCTION. 51

thesis of three elements, and that roVos is traceable to iraXiv-

TOVOS (or TraXivTpo7ro<;) dp/jLovi-rj. Stein s more moderate estimate appears to us truer.

(4) Trepi at<r$?7crea>s.

(5) Trpos Ar;p,o/cptTov, perhaps the same as Trepi rwv drofjuav vii. (Diog. L. 134) so Krische p. 430.

(6) Trpos Apto-rapxof, see 011 frag. 27. Some have erro neously supposed that the Aristarchus here referred to was the Homeric critic, whose date is a century later than

Cleanthes; cf. Krische p. 394 and Wilamowitz-Moellendorf in xx. 631.

(7) VTTOfjLvtj/uiaTa <v<rtKa (Plut. Sto. Rep. C. 8). The books next in order treat of $coAoyiKov. has been identified witli (8) apxaioXoyta /xi>$i/ca (Athen. xin. 572 e, Porphyr. vit. Pyth. c. 1), but the genuineness of the latter is work seriously questioned. Miiller frag. hist. Gr. n. 9. p. 5. 11 thinks that the TO. Kara TTO\IV p.v6iKo. of Neanthes of

Cyzicus (cf. Plut. quaest. syrup. I. 10) is referred to in both passages and Zeller Pre-Socr. I. p. 308 says: The Cleanthes of is certainly not the Stoic but most likely a mis spelling for Neanthes of .

(9) Trept flewv, cf. Plut. de vit. aer. alien, c. 7. To this work Wachsmuth refers frags. 47. 54. 5G. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Krische (p. 418, 422) also the statements in Cic.

N. D. I. 37 14 the to (frags. 17) and hymn Zeus (frag. 48). also See Osann Praef. Cornut. p. ix.

(10) Trepi yiyufTwj . is a (11) Trepi Y/zevcuou. This curious title. Perhaps it should rather be classed as ethical. Cf. Persaeus book Trepi ydfj.ov (Diog. L. vii. 36).

(12) Trtpi TOV TroirjTov. This book treated of the interpre tation of Homer, and Wachsmuth accordingly refers to it frags. 55. 65. 66. 67. To these should be added frag. 63 and perhaps frag. 54.

(13) OcopaxLo. (ps.-Plut. de Fluv. v. 3. 4) was identified by Krische with the book Trepi supra (p. 434) but this ytyavrcov 42 52 INTRODUCTION. and the next book are rightly described by Wachsmuth as see on 69. "ficta ab impostore ps.-Plutarcho," note frag. (14) iTpl opaJv, ib. \. 17. 4. in Fabricius Bibl. Gr. ill. p. 552 infers from Simplic. Epict. Man. c. 78 that one of Cleanthes works bore the title

"in his well lap.(3fia, but the words simply mean known Iambic lines."

III. Ethical.

see Zeller 42. (1) Trpos "HpiAAov. For Herillus p.

(2) Trepi dp/ui/s /? .

(3) Trepi TOV KaOijKOVTOS y.

(4) Trepi fvj3ov\La<i. (5) Trepi ^aptros.

(6) TrporpeTTTiKo?. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 91.

(7) Trepi dperwv.

(8) Trepi v<^vtas.

(9) Trepi TopyLinrov "num Trpos FopytTTTrov qui idem fuerit atque FopyiTrTrtS^s ad quem complura scripta Chrysippus misit?

Waclism. Mohnike p. 100 wishes to read FopytTrTriSov.

(10) Trept <f>6ov(pia<;.

(11) Trepi IpwTos. Here belongs perhaps frag. 108. (12) Trepi (13)

(14) Trepi TL/j.rj<;.

(15) Trepi 80^7;?.

(16) TroXiTiKo?. Here belongs frag. 104, cf. Plut. Sto, Rep. c. 2.

(17) Trepi

(18) Trepi

(19) Trepi TOU

(20) Trepi

(21) Trepi

(22) Trepi

(23) Trepi 7rpdf(i>v.

(24) Trepi /3acriXeias. INTRODUCTION. 53

(25) TTfpl <lAtas. LOv. (26) Trept frv/J.TTOo Persaeus wrote CTU/XTTOTIKU V7ro/j.vr]- uara or StaXoyot (Athen. iv. 162 b, xiu. 607 a). TOV *ai So (27) Trept on 77 avrr/ dperrj oVSpos ywatKOS. Antisthenes also taught (Diog. L. vi. 12) and cf. Socrates in Xen. Symp. n. 9. Otherwise Aristotle, Pol. i. 13. 1260 a 21. Eth. vin. 14. 1162 a 26.

(28) Trept TOV TOV o~o(f)ov croc/HcrTeuetv.

(29) Trept XptLwv. (30) SiaTpt/3wv p. see foil. (31) Trept yoovrjs. For this book Krische p. 430 vii. title of this (32) Trept XO.XKOV (Diog. L. 14). The book has been much discussed. It was altered to Trept ^aptros by Fabricius and Casaubon, to Trept xpovou by Menagius, Mohnike, It is that and to Trept xpetwv by Wachsmuth. possible ^aA/coi) is due to the scribe s eye catching the word ^a^Kov which closely precedes in the citation, and, if so, we have no clue to the true title. is to have existed (33) Trept o-Toa?. This book supposed from a mutilated of Philodemus in vol. passage Trept <>i\o<ro(j>wv VIII. v. at T ran Here. col. 13 18 ok aVaypa<at Tr(t)i/aKwv (at)re eV TW 7Kat <T7]fJiaivovo-LV, (Trapa K.X)edvOf] Trept o-r(ods e)cr(Tti )

. vTij TJ P.VTJM. ^^ >, 6

/ /


1. Diog. L. VII. 39, rpi/jLepr) (fracrlv elvai TOV Kara

\6yov. ecvat yip avTOv TO /Jiev n oe i]6iKov TO oe \oyi/c6v. OVTCO Se rrpcoTO^ SteZXe TA

KtrtetN ev TOO rrepl \6yov. The triple division of philosophy was first brought into prominence by Zeno and the Stoics, though it seems to have been adopted before them by Xenocrates and the Peripatetics, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vn. 1G eWeXecrrepoz 8e...oi elrrovTes r?}? c/uXocro^/a? TO ^ikv TI eivai (^VCTLKOV TO 8e TO $e wv TL\aTO)v 1J0IKOV Xoyi/cov >vuap,ei /jiev eVrn

o?, rrepi TTO\\WV /j,ev (frvcrtfcwv TroXXcoy Se i}6iKwv OVK

1 e \OJIKWV SiaXe^^et? prjTOTCtTa Se ol Trepl TOT teal ol drro TOV TcepiTraTov GTL 8e ol aTTo r^?

(7Toa? e^ovTai, Trja8e r^? Sfatpecreco?. Ar. Top. I. p. 105 b 19 CTTl S CO? TVTTW TTepL\a^LV T(t)V TTpOTCKTewV Kttl TWV TTpO-

al elcriv, at (3\rj/jtdTa>i> /Jt,eprj Tpia /j,ev <yap rjOucal TrpoTaaeif

Se (J3V(7iKai, al 8e Xoyt/cal must not be taken as indicating that Aristotle had in view the triple division (see Waitz in foe.). Cicero speaking of , Aristotle, Xenocrates,

Polemo, and says (de Fin. IV. 4) : totam philosophiam tres in partes diviserunt, quam partitionem a Zenone esse retentam videmus. In Acad. I. 19 he wrongly attribvites the division to Plato (fuit ergo jam accepta a

Platone philosophandi ratio triplex) : Diog. L. III. 56 only says that Plato introduced the SiaXert/co? TOTTO?, not that 56 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. he recognised the triple division. With the Stoics it became so fundamental that they did not hesitate to refer to it the three heads of and Athene s name Tptro- yeveia (Zeller, pp. 363, 3G4). Hirzel (de logica Stoicorum in Sauppe s Satura Philologa, p. 71) thinks that Zeno was the inventor of the in of Xenocrates term \oyuc>} place Sia\KTitcrj.

2. Diog. L. VII. 40, d\\oi 8e irpwTov pcv TO Xoyi/cov rarrovai Seirepov 8e TO (frva-itcoV KCL\ rpirov TO rjOitcov. wi> e(TTi Zr)va)v ev T&> Trepl \ojov. As logic is obviously the least important to the Stoics of the three divisions, Zeno regarded Ethics, not Physics, as the kernel of his system. The authorities are however very confusing on this point, for of Chrysippus, who is coupled with Zeno in Diog., Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, 1 says:

TOVTWV (pepdiiv) 8eiv TaTTeadai irpwTOv pev TU \oyticd, in the 8evTepa &e TO. tjQitcd, TpiTa 8e TO, fyvcnicd and yet same passage we find attributed to Chrysippus the state ment 01)8 a\\ov TIVOS /cev T7/9 <f)V(TiK7J<; Oewpias Trapa- KCLKWV \tj7TTrj<; ovcrr]? fj TT/DO? TJ;I> irepl dyaOwv rj ^idaracnv, which shows that he must have regarded ethics as con taining the consummation of philosophy. Again, the Stoics compared the three parts of philosophy to a garden surrounded by a wall and also to an egg, but whereas according to Diog. (vil. 40) physics are likened to the fruit of the garden and the yolk of the egg, in Sextus (adv. Math. vn. 17 19) they are compared to the trees in the garden and the white of the egg, having changed places with ethics. But both alike in recording the comparison, which Posidonius thought more apt, yield the place of honour to ethics, which are compared to the soul of man. It is not improbable, as Wellmann and Stein

(Erkenntnistheorie, p. 302) think, that the two former of THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 57 these similes may be due to Zeno, on whose fondness for such similes we have remarked in the Introd. p. 33, but there is no evidence to decide. The confusion about the whole matter seems to have arisen from the distinction im made by the Stoics between the order of relative Sext. 1. c. portance and the order of teaching (cf. 22, 23). it is most natural to At any rate, as regards Zeno, suppose the admirer of Socrates that the pupil of Crates and forefront of his and placed ethics in the system. [Bitter as Preller, 390 n. and Ueberweg, p. 192 apparently regard the earlier view that which gave physics the most im sec n. portant position, but Stein, Psychologic 7.] LOGICA.

IV. rov 3. Arr. Epict. diss. 8, 12, 6ewp^fJLara $iKo<ro- rd rov rrotov (bov...d Zijvwv \e<yei, ^vwvai \oyov crrot^eta,

TL, eKaaroi avrmv ecru KOI TTCO? ap^orrerac, rrpos d\\r)\a Kal ocra rovrots (\Ko\ov9d eari. s to It is difficult, in the absence of Zeno context, decide the exact meaning of rd rov \6yov aroi-^eia. in the There is no doubt that the Stoics used this phrase ecrri... of VII. 5<S Be sense of "parts speech" (Diog. pfj^a but this is not aroL^elov \6yov drrrcorov), meaning general the words im enough and is certainly excluded by

TI reXo? ; n mediately preceding in ^] fyopelv d\\d ro rov \6yov. It is sug rpiftwva ; ov, opOov e^et^ that Zeno is here in gested, therefore, expressing, possibly that an earlier work, the of Antisthenes and = elements of definition. \6yov o-rot^la the (indefinable) Dr Jackson in It is now generally admitted (see e.g. some Journ. Phil. xni. 2G2) that the opinion stated at 201 E 202 C is that of length by Socrates in Theaet. p. in this Antisthenes, and the words crrot^etot and ^670? the sense must have belonged to his terminology (see 58 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. whole passage and especially rd pev rrpwra oiovrrepei crrot%eia...\6 yov OVK e^et 201 E, ovrto STJ rd [lev 0X070. teal ayvwra elvai, alcrdrird 8e, cf. 20G E TO devra rl e/cacrrov Svvarov elvai rrjv diroKpiviv Bid rwv aroi-^eiwv aTroSovvai ra> epo/jievw) : with this should be compared the passages in AT. Metaph. vni. 3. 1043 b 23, XIV. 3. 1091 a 7 war ova las eart p,ev )? evBe-^erai elvai opov Kal \6yov olov T^? crvvderov eav re alcrdijTrj edv re vorjTrj rj- e^ (Sv 8 avrrj Trputrwv OVK ecrriv. It is not a necessary inference from this passage that Zeno treated as or that he and opQos ~\.6yo<> tcpiTTjpiov dXrjdeia^,

Cleanthes are the a\\oi rives TO>V dp^aiorepwv ^.TWLKWV whom Diogenes (vn. 54) mentions as holding this opinion, although Hirzel thinks this established, comparing frag. 157 (Untersuchungen, II. pp. 14 f. 23). Indeed it is difficult to understand how, except on the hypothesis of a change of opinion, this is reconcilable with the fact that Zeno introduced the as will <f>avTa<rla KaraX^TrriKij, appear hereafter. Hirzel further remarks: "Unter den TWV (iTTo rfjs Sroa? rtfe? des Alexand. Aphrod. zur Topik

(schol. Arist. p. 256 b 14) welche den AXX/D? durch rl ffv definirten konnte Zenon gemeint sein." The latter part of this note requires some modification if Stein s view referred to in the Introd. p. 9 be accepted. The same writer (Erkenntnistheorie, p. 90, 91) explains yvwvai rd TOV \6yov aroi-^ela as "die Erkenntnis der Elemente des Denkens d. h. wie das Denken beschaffen sei und worin die gegenseitige Verbindung der Gedanken bestehe und welche Konsequerizen sich aus dieser Gedankenverbind- ung ergeben."

4. Arr. Epict. diss. I. 17. 10, 11, Kal rd \oyiKn el xai aKaprrd e crTt.../cat Trepl rovrov fiev 0-^ro^.eBa, & ovv rovro 80177 Tt9, CKelva aTrapKel, on rwv d\\a>v THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

SlCtKplTlKa KCtl eTTlO-KeTTTlKci KOL to? (IV T49 lTTOt rifcd /cal crrantcd rt<? \eyei ravra ; nov

Kal Ziijvoiv tcai K. X.eavOrj^ ; This and the two following fragments show us the view which Zeno took of the value of logical studies, which were recommended not so much on account of the value of the results obtained, as because they enable us tu test the theories and expose the fallacies of others and to clear the ground for further enquiries, cf. Ar. Top. I. 104 1 ol/ceLov b TOVTO 8 iBiov 77 (j,d\i<TTa rijs e<7Tiv ovara dirao wv %Ta<rTlKr) yap Trpos ra9 oSov cf. also the title to ap%a<? e^et, opyavov given II. the Aristotle s logical treatises (Waitz 294-) and name KdvoviKrj adopted by the Epicureans. For the distinction between the Peripatetic and Stoic views of logic see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 207. Hirzel s remarks about take into account this Zeno (de log. Stoic, p. 72) do not evidence.

The word is used cf. o-TdTiKa, "weighing." by Plato, Phileb. 55 E olov Tracrwv TTOU re^vwv dv rt?

Kal cJ>> e?ro? Xwpi^r) Kal fji.erp rjTtKrjV arariKr/v, Charmid. 166 B.

Floril. 5. Stob. Eel. ii. 2. 12 p. 22, 12 Wachsm. [vulgo

LXXXII. 5], Zrjvcav ra9 rwv Sia\KTiK(i)v re^va^ e^Ka^e TOi? xerpot? ou irvpov ou8 aXXo rt TOJV <T7rovoai(av aXX d^ypa Kal KOTrpia. At first sight this and the next fragm. appear con tradictory, but probably this is directed against some particular opponents. The Megarians, the of this that period, are most likely to be meant, and we know they were often called SiaXeKriKoi, as the Stoics them selves are by Sextus (Zeller, Socrates etc. p. 250 n. 3). Moreover Alexinus was a determined opponent of Zeno 60 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

II. 109 8e and (Diog. 8ie<f>epeTO p,d\ia-ra 777109 Zrjvwva) Sextus tells us how he controverted Zeno s proof that the world is Xoyi*o9 (Math. ix. 107). Stein thinks that the inconsistency is to be explained by the importance attributed by Zeno to the question of the criterion

(Erkenntnistheorie, p. 303), but surely StaXetcrifcwv in 5 frag. and SiaXercTiKrjv in frag. 6 must refer to the same branch of logic. The explanation is however perfectly valid to explain the difference of statement between Cic. Fin. iv. 9 and id. Acad. i. 40. rexvas = treatises.

SIKCUOIS : so the three best MSS AM and S : elxaiois adopted by Mein. from MS B (late and untrustworthy) is virtually a conjecture. Wachsm. suggests xv&alois but, on the interpretation given above, St/eatW is more forcible : the are methods good enough (cf. ^rpijTitcd frag. 4) but they are put to base uses, i.e. to mere quibbling. After

/LteV/3Oi9 Gaisf. add. ol?. If the fragment be interpreted quite generally as a depreciation of logical studies, we have here an approxi mation to the position of Aristo (Stob. Eel. II. 2. 14, 18, = 22 Floril. LXXXII. 7, 11, 18) in one of the points on which he severed himself from the Stoic school.

6. Plut. Sto. Rep. VIII. 2, eXve Se (sell. Zeno) aofaa-- Kai fjiara rr/v 8ta\eKTCKrjv <W9 TOVTO Troieiv 8vvafJ,evr)v K.e\eve 7rapa\a/j./3dveiv TOI)<? /jLadrjrds. Hence Schol. ud Arist. 22 b 29 ed. Brandis speaking of that he says was called d/j.fyorepo yXuHTcros ov% OTL 8ia-

\eKTitcos rjv tw? 6 Ktrtei/9. cf. the anecdote related vn. 25. <ro4>o-(i.aTa, by Diog. A logician showed Zeno seven Sia\KTiKai ISeat in the Reaper fallacy, and received 200 drachmas, although his fee was only half that amount, ib. vn. 47 OVK dvev 8e THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. Gl

rfjs &La\KTiKrjs Oecopias rov crcxfrov I ITTTWTOV evecrdat i

u<yw...ro re fA is TT\V 8ia\KTiKTjv. Strictly speaking, \ojiKj} a wider cf. VII. 41 TO Se term than SmXe/cTi/c?;, Diog. \oyiKoi> fjtepos (fracrlv evioi et? Svo Siaipeto-dai 10. pijTOpticrjv /cat a? ^taX.eKTiKtjv, Sen. Ep. 89,

7. (fravracrLa eVrl TUTraxrt? eV tyv^f). Sext. Einp. Math. vii. 228, 230 distinctly attributes this definition to

Zeno. Diog. VII. 45 n]v Se ^avracriav elvat rvTruxrcv di> tyvXli) r v ot o/uaro? oliceiw^ fjieTevrfve^fJievov djro rtav TVTTWV ev TOJ Krjpo) VTTO rov SaKrvXiov yi yvojjievwv, ib. 50 quoting Chrysippus gloss aXkoiwaLs : cf. Pint. Conini. Not. 47.

For the use of TUTTWO-IS see Introd. p. 34. That Zeno did not define his meaning further than by the bare statement is evident from the controversy which after wards arose between Cleanthes and Chrysippus as to the exact meaning of TVTTWO-LS : for which see on Cleanth. frag. 3. It would seem however from the expressions

"effictum" and in s "impressum" Zeno definition of av-

racria KaraX^TrriKr] (frag. 11) that Cleanthes is a truer exponent of his master s teaching in this matter than Chrysippus. Zeno must have been influenced by Aristotle s

treatment of (fravTacrta (de An. in. 3): see Introd. p. 24. further See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 157.

8. ra? fj,ev aco-dr/creis d\i]6els rwv Se

fjiev d\r)0els ra<? 8e ^euSet?. This is attributed to the

Stoics generally by Stob. Eel. I. 50. 21, Plut. plac. iv. 8. 9, but must belong to Zeno having regard to Sext. Emp. VIII. adv. Math. 355, A^/xo/c^iro? //,e^ iracrav aio 0r)Tijv vTrap^iv KeKivrjKev, ETrtVoupo? 8e Trdv ala~Bijr6v eA.ee elvai 6 Se ST&HACO? Cic. /3e(3aiov ^rjvwv Siaipeaei e^prjro ; 62 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

N. D. I. 70 urgebat Arcesilas Zenonem, cum ipse falsa omnia diceret quae sensibus viderentur; Zeno autem

nonnulla visa esse non omnia Cic. I. visis falsa, ; Acad. 41 non omnibus adjungebat fidem.

Zeno is not entirely a sensualist : Stein, Erkenntnis-

theorie, p. 307. For the general doctrine see ib. p. 142 151. Zeno is here again following the lead of Aristotle, cf. de III. 3. An. 7 elra al fj,ev (scil. aiadrjcreis) dXrjdelf

del, al 8e (fravracrLai ytvovrat al TrXetou? \lreuSets. On the other hand held Trao-a? TO? fyavraaias aXyOels elvai (Sext. Math. vn. 204).

9. Cic. Acad. I. 41, (Zeno) adjungebat fidem... iis (visis) solum, quae propriam quamdam haberent decla- rationem earum rerum, quae viderentur. Cicero is here speaking of the Greek evdpyeta, for which he elsewhere suggests as translations perspicuitas or evidentia (ib. II. 17). Every sense impression is evapyes according to the Epicureans (Zeller, p. 428), but with Zeno evdpyeia is simply introduced as an attribute of KaTa\7)TTTiKrj fyavTacria: cf. Sext. Math. VII. 257 speaking of the K. ovaa icai <f>. avTT) yap evapyrjs 7r\r)KTtKi} fiovov ov%l ru>v rp^dov Xa/i/Sa^erat tcaTaaTrwcra ^/u,a? et? criry- KardOeaiv real a\\ov /Aij&evos &0/j,evr) ei9 TO roiavrrj et9 TO VTTO- fj TTJV TTpo? Ta? XXa? Sia<j)opdv Hirzel (Untersuchungen, n. pp. 3, 6) attributes to the Cynics but his authorities merely show that Diogenes proved the possibility of by walking about (Diog. vi. 39), which Sextus (Math. x. 68) calls a proof 5t avrfjs TJ}? e

10. Sext. Math. VII. 253, aXXa yap ol pev dp%aio- repoi T&JI> ^TOJIKWV Kpirtipcov (fracriv elvai rfjf d\r)0eias

Kara\ri7rTiKrjv fyavracrlav. ib. 227 tcpiTijpiov dXrj TTJV fcaraXrjTTTiKjjv fyavraalav. This is to be at- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 63 tributcd to Zeno partly as an inference from the word np-^aioTepot,, partly as a necessary corollary from the next fragment, and partly in accordance with the testimony of Cic. Acad. I. 42 sed inter scientiam et inscientiam com- prehensionem illam (KardXrj-^iv) quam dixi collocabat eamque neque in rectis neqne in pravis numerabat sed credendum esse dicebat. Diog. L. vn. 46 refers the citation to the school generally and in 54 quotes it from

Chrysippus ev rfj SvutbeKa-ny rdov fyvattcwv. For the doctrine of the KaraX^TrrLKy} fyavraa-ia see 87 89. Zeller, pp. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 167 foil. Four different explanations of the meaning of the term have been given (1) tcaraX. active. The irresistible cha racter of the impression compels assent, Zeller. (2) KardX. passive : the is grasped by the mind, Hirzel. The of (3) object representation (TO inrdp-^ov} and not the is the perception grasped by mind, Ueberweg, p. 192 (now given up by Hoinze). (4) KaraX. both active and passive, Stein, thus reconciling the apparent contra diction between Cic. Acad. I. 41, and Sext, Math. vil. 257. For the exact of Kara\rl l meaning ^^)(Ka-TaXr mLKrj <pav- racrla cf. Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 182 KaTaX-rj^i^ ecrn icara-

: a XrjTrTiKrjs $>avTaaias crvyKaraOecr^ distinction, possibly due to which tends to Zeno, disappear in practice. See also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 182. Ka-raX^^ Kara- etc. were \Tj7TTiKr}, new terminology invented by Zeno, to Cic. Acad. I. 41 according comprehensionem appel- labat similem iis rebus, quae manu prehenderentur: ex quo etiam nomen hoc dixerat cum eo verbo antea nemo tali in re usus est, ib. II. 145, but the KaraXa/^- rfdveiv had been used Plato in the by sense "to grasp with the mind," Phaedr. 250 r> 8e -rrepl >cd\\ovs, da-rep per etceivwv re eXa^Trev ov, Sevpo re eXdovre? avro Sid rrjs evapyea-rdrris ala-dr) crews TU>V 64 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

therefore, ijnerepa)i> <ni\$ov evapyecrrara. Zeno, only see Introd. 34 specialised the meaning of the word, p. and generally Introd. p. 9.

VII. 11. Sext. Math. 24<S, ^avraa-ia KaTa\r)7rriKij OTTO KOI KOLT avro TO eariv 77 rov vTrdp^ovros vtrap^ov cnroia OVK av evaTrope/jLay/jLevr) Kal evaTrecrfypayiaiLevri ye- II. 4. VOITO d-rro pr) v-rrdpxovTos, ib. 426, Pyrrh. Diogenes words in gives the definition in substantially the same 50 adding however Kal evaTrorervfrw^evr] after evairo- but fMefjLay^evrj : in 46 he omits oirola v7rdp%ovTo$

: Se a-Tro afro adds dKardX^Trrov rrjv /LIT) vTrdp^ovro^, r/ 8e TO fj.v, fir) Kar avro inrdp-^ov rrjv fit) rpavi) e/crvTrov, which very possibly belongs also to Zeno. The evidence attaching the definition to Zeno is as fol lows : Cic. Acad. II. 18 si illud esset, sicut Zeno definiret, tale visum impressum effictumque ex eo unde esset quale id a Zenone defi- ease non posset ex eo unde non esset, nos nitumrectissimedicimus; ib. 113, ib. I. 41 id autem visum cum ipsum per se cerneretur comprehendibile (of Zeno) Arcesilas ib. II. 77. Speaking of the controversy between and Zeno, Cic. states that the last words of the definition were added by Zeno because of the pressure put upon Euseb. P. E. xiv. him by Arcesilas. Numenius ap. 6, TOVTO avrov p. 733 TO Be Soypa (scil. Z^i/tuj/o?) Trpwrov ev evpopevov tcavro TO ovo/J,a ft\eTrwv V^OKLJJLOVV rah TI}V KaraX^TTTiKriv ^avraaiav irdar) ^rj-^avf} avrrjv (of Arcesilas). August, c. Acad. III. 9, 18 sed videamus quid ait Zeno. Tale scilicet visum com- falso non haberet prehendi et percipi posse, quale cum signa communia. is a his The controversy between Arcesilas and Zeno torical fact about which there can be no doubt, and, apart from direct evidence, the chronology proves that our defi- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 65

nition can be due to hardly Chrysippus, who only suc ceeded to the of the headship Stoa eight years after the death of Arcesilas Pint. Coin. Not. c. (cf. 1). This ques tion of the criterion was the chief battle-ground of the Stoics and the New Academy, and in later times Carneades maintained -rrdvra elvai d/card^-vTa ov -jrdvra 8e (iSi]\a (Zeller, p. 555). In the second book of Cicero s the question is discussed at length. Sext. Math. VIL 248 252 shows in detail the reason for the insertion of each member of the definition: the impression must be from the object to exclude the visions of madmen, and with reference to the object to exclude a case like that of who mistook Orestes, his sister for a Fury. It must be imprinted and stamped on the mind to ensure that the percipient shall have noticed all the characteristics of the the object. Lastly, addition o-rroia ovtc dv yevoiTO d-rro firj VTrdpxovTo? was inserted to meet the Academic ob that two one jection impressions, true and the other false, be so might entirely alike (d7rapd\\aKrov} as to be in capable of distinction, which of course the Stoics did not admit. For eVaTro/ze/zc^eV?; cf. Ar. Ran. 1040 oOev

<f>prjv airo^a^a^vri TroXXa? dperds

12. in Plat, Olympiodorus Gorg. pp. 53, 54 (ed. Jahn ap. Neue Jahrb. ftir Philol. supplement bd. xiv. 1848 p. 239, 8e on earl 240) Zrjvwv (f>r](nv re^vi] cfvar^^a etc

ea)i> o-vyyeyv/jiva(r/j,evov (? -wv] rrpos ri reXo? ei>- rwv ev TO) /3la>.

Cf. Lucian Paras, c. 4 re^vr) eariv, &5? 70;

rivo? e/c cro<f>ov dtcov<ra<i, CTVO-TIJ/JUI Kar crvyyeyv/jivaa-/u,evo)i> Trpos ri reXo? ev^priarov rwv ev

/3/ft>. Schol. ad. Ar. Nub. 317 OVTO) ydp 6pi6fj,e0a TTJV olov re-^vrjv ava-rr^iMa e/c KardX^-^eajv eyyeyvfAvao-pevGov real -rd efagfc. Sext. Emp. Math. n. 10 Trdcra roivvv H. P. 06 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

reyvrj crvarrjfjid ecrrtv e /t Kara\r]^reu>v

KOI CTTI reXo? evxprja-TOV TU> /3i&) \a/jL^av6vTO}v rrjv dva- definition in id. in. (ftopdv. The same partially Pyrrh. 188, 241, 251, Math. I. 75, vn. 109, 373, 182. Wachsm.

I. Schol. Thrac. also quotes (Comm. p. 12), Dionys. p. 649,

oi oi;Ta><> 31, ib. p. 721, 25 STOH/COI opi^ovrai rrfv

e<nt ffvff re-^vrj rrjp.a Trepl "^v^v yevopevov also II. eyyeyv/jLvaa-fjievwv K.T.\. Cf. Quiutil. 17, 41 Nam sive, ut Cleanthes voluit, ars est potestas via, id est, ordine cfficiens: esse certe viam atque ordinem in benedicendo nemo dubitaverit sive ille ab omnibus fere ; probatus finis observatur artem constare ex praeceptionibus con- sentientibus et coexercitatis ad finem vitae utilem. Cic. frag. ap. Diomed 414 ed. Putsch ars est perceptionum exercitarum constructio ad unum exitum utilem vitae pertinentium. Cic. Acad. II. 22 ars vero quae potest esse nisi quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis animi perceptionibus constat. Fin. III. 18 artes...constent ex cognitionibus et contineat quiddam in se ratione consti- tutum et via (illustrating also the next frag.). N. D. II. 148 ex quibus (perceptis) collatis inter se et comparatis artes quoque efficimus partim ad usum vitae... necessarias. It is worth while to compare with Zeno s definition of art those to be found in Aristotle: both philosophers vi. 4. 6 alike recognise its practical character (cf. Eth. ovv Tt? 7; p*v T%VIJ eft? fj,erd \6<yov aXrjdovs 7rotr)TiKij and that it means of <TTIV) proceeds by regulated prin

Met. I. 1. 5 Se 1 rav * K TroXXwi/ ciples (cf. yiverat T^X "*)

T^? enTreipias evvorjfiaTwv fiia KaOoXov yevrjrai Trepl TU>V t Aristotle s distinction that is ofioiwv 7ro\?7 vja<?). re-^vrj

concerned with yevea-ts while eTria-rtj^ij deals with bv (Anal. Post. II. 19. 4) is of course foreign to Zeno s system. s Zeller note on p. 266, 2 (Eng. Tr.) is inaccurate but

appears correctly in the 4th German ed. (ill. 1. 247). THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 67

13. Schol. ad Thracis Dionys. Gramm. ap. Bokk. Anecd. p. 663, 16, o5? Br)\ol teal 6 Zijvwv \eywv reyvrj earlv

%iS 6SoTTOir}TLK1J, TOVT(7Tl, Si" 6SoV KOI fJL06SoV TTOlOVad Tl. The authenticity of this fragment is rendered doubtful (1) by the fact that Zeno had defined re^vi) differently, as we have seen, (2) because Cleanthes defined -rk-^vn as e6<? 6$a> -rravra avvovaa It is (frag. 5). of course possible that Zeno left two alternative definitions as in the case of 7r0o9 136 and and that (frags. 137), Cleanthes adopted one of these with verbal alterations, but it seems most probable that the Schol. has made a mistake, and certainly has a oSoTTotrjTi/cv suspicious look. Stein however, Er- kenntnistheorie, p. 312, accepts the definition.


These words are shown to belong to Zeno by the considerations. following Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 372 foil. is describing the controversy between Cleanthes and Chrysippus as to the meaning of Zeno s rv-rrwa^ and introduces one of Chrysippus arguments el yap K^pov rpoTrov TVTTOvrai r/ -^vxf) $>avTa<TTiKMs Tr/ia^ovcra del TO fclvr)/j,a eVtcr/cor^crei rfj Trporepa ^avraaia, wcnrep Kai j r^ SevTepa? ffpar/l TVTTOS eaeitrnito^ ean rov -rrporepov. d\~>C el TOVTO, dvaipeirai p.ev fwjpri, 6i]- ovcra $avra(Tiu>v, dvaipeirai &e -rraaa rexi T yap r/v teal (Wpoia^a Kara\^ewv K.T.\. Xow one might suspect from internal evidence done that Chrysippus is appealing to the school definitions of Memory and Art as established Zeno in by support of his argument against Zeno s pupil, but the inference becomes irresistible when we find that the definition of Art is certainly Zeno s, as has been shown. already Cf. Cic. Acad. n. 22 quid meminit quisquam quod non animo comprehendit et tenet >. ib. 106 memoria perceptarum comprehensarumque 52 68 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. rerum est. Plut. plac. iv. 11. 2. Aristotle discusses the and in the tract de relation between /Mwijfjir) fyavracria Grote s = Memoria (see Aristotle, pp. 475, 476). p^vr}^ AM>J/T) Post. II. 19. 99 b 36. rov ai<r0ri/j,aros, An.

15. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. VII. 151, Bo^av elvai rrjv attributed to da-devrj Kal -^rev^r] avyrcardOeo-iv Zeno by Cic. Acad. I. 41 ex qua (inscientia) exsisteret etiam opinio, quae esset imbecilla et cum falso incognitoque communis, cf. ib. Tusc. iv. 15 opinationem autem...volunt esse im- becillam assensionem. Stobaeus speaks of two Stoic defi m Eel. II. 7. ll 2 nitions of Sofa , p. 112, [=11. 231] jap elvai 86a<? rrjv /Mev aKaraXijTrrw crisyKarddecriv, II. 7. 10. 8 v7r6\r)TJriv daOevij, cf. ib. p. 89, l[=n. 169] &6av dvrl da-0evovs VTTO- 7rapa~\.a/ji/3di>e(r@ai rrjv rr)<t X^ewf. It is possible from a consideration of the next as with frag, that Zeno s word was olrjai.^. Thus, Plato, B6i;a and dyvoia are ultimately identical. See further Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 204, 205.

16. Diog. L. VII. 23, e\ey6 8e (ATj&ev elvat T^? 0177-

is used because TWV ^-iria-TT](iuiv. The plural in the narrower sense in which Zeno used the word is The Stoics also defined a single Kard\T)^lri<f. eVio-T?;^?; 1 as a ffva-r^a (cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 p. 73, 21 =11. 129) of such . At the same time we must be ware of supposing that eTTia-r^r) is according to Zeno identical with Kard\r}\lri^. eVicrr^/iT/ is the conscious knowledge of the wise man, whereas Kard\T]-^n^ may be possessed by the <aOXo9. The latter may occasionally and accidentally assent to the KaraXijTm/c?} fyavracria, but the former s assent is regular and unerring. Cf. Sext.

Math. VII. 152 toi/ rf/v p,kv eTria-T^rjv ev /idvot? vfy io-raadai Be B6av ev rot? rot? /j.6voi<; <f>av\ois \ejova~t cro<^>ot<, rrjv THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 69 rrjv 8e Kard\r]^nv tcoivtjv d^orepuv eivai. We have here, in the Platonic fact, distinction between Soga d\TjOr)s and in another form.

17. Cic. Acad. I. 41, .si ita erat comprehension ut convelli ratione non posset scion tiam sin aliter inscientiam uominabat (Zeno). The Greek sources for this will be found in Stob. bcl. II. /, 5 19 = 11. eivai p. 73, 129 rr/v eTncrr^ fjiijv tcard-

/cal VTTO " \r)tyiv acr(f)a\rj d^eraTTTwrov \6yov, ib. 11 p. Ill, -0=11. 231, ri]v dyvoiav ^erairrwriKriv eivai a-vy/card- deaiv KOI dcrOevrj, cf. Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 151, eVtcr- eivai rrj^riv n]v dcr^)a\rj teal /3e{3a[av real dfjuerdderov VTTO see \6yov KardXrj-^Lv, also Stein, p. 311 and n. 711, who concludes that these definitions are Zeiionian. Diog. L. VII. 47, re. avrr]V TI]V eTrta-rr/^v (fraalv ?} KardXri^Lv ev (tacfraXfj, f) e^tv (fravracridov Trpoa-Segei, d/jLerdTrrwrov VTTO The definition of \6yov. Trt<mj/j,r] as 49 /c.rA. is due to Herillus, cf. ib. vn. 105, but I am unable to see on that why ground Zeller, p. 82, n. 1, and Wellmann, should p, 480, also infer that it was introduced by Zeno. It is far more natural to suppose that the simplest form of the definition was first put forward by the founder of the school, and that it was subsequently modified by his successors in accordance with their different positions: thus Herillus definition is undoubtedly modelled on Zeno s, but is to his adapted conception of eVia-r^/u,?; as the ethical reXo?.

18. Cic. Acad. I. 42, inter scientiam et inscientiam comprehensionem collocabat, eamque neque in rectis neque in pravis numerabat. Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 151, eTrtcrT?;//?;^ teal 86av /cal rrjv ev 70 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

TOVTWV : ib. 6 eiKvv<; ragv 153, A.pK<ri\ao<;...o on Sev ecTTi ical Kcnd- fj,erav 7riaTii/j,r)<> S6j~r)<s Kpirrjpiov r\ (It will be observed that where Cicero speaks of inscientia Sextus mentions Soga, but, as has been shown, they are practically identical.) Wellmann, p. 484, thinks that either there is some mistake in the text or that Cicero has misunderstood his authorities, but the passage in Sextus I.e. 151 153 makes the meaning perfectly clear: see the note on frag. 16. The latter part of Cicero s statement may be either an inference by his authority ex silentio, or a record of an express statement by Zeno. In any case, it derives its force here simply from the antithesis to scientia and inscientia : thus the

Stoics classed certain virtues (goods) as eVto-r^/iai and b vices as cf. II. 7. 5 certain (evils) dyvoiai, Stob. Eel. , = p. 58, 559, 3 II. 9294.

19. Cic. Acad. I. 41, Zeno ad haec quae visa sunt et quasi accepta sensibus assensionem adiungit animorum : quam esse vult in nobis positam et voluntariam. In this case it is impossible to recover Zeno s actual words, nor can we tell how much of the Stoic doctrine handed down Sext. Math. vin. to Zeno by 397, belonged ; cf. especially crwyKaTdOecris tfris OLTT\OVV eoitcev elvai Trpay/jia KOL TO p.v TI e^eiv (IKOIXTIOV TO Be eKouaiov KOI

eTrl Tfj rj/j.Tepa /cpicrei Kelpevov. A full list of authorities

is given by Zeller, Stoics, p. 88, n. 1. The free power of assent must be understood only in the limited sense in which is possible in consequence of the Stoic

: 1. c. doctrine of ei/j,apfjiev7) see Wellmann, pp. 482, 483. It is moreover only the wise man who can distinguish accurately the relative strength of divers impressions, and he alone will consistently refuse assent to mere THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 71

20. Cic. Acad. I. 41, Quod autem erat sensu compre- hensum, id ipsum sensum appellabat. For the different meanings of aio-Oya-is in the Stoic school, see Diog. L. VII. 52 at cr^crt? Se \eyerai /card roi)? ^.TWIKOVS TO T6 KOL 7rl rav </> rfye/j,oviKOV Trvev^a &L /cal alaOijcreis SLTJKOV, Kal rj avTwv Kard\r)-^^, -q Trepl

TO. fcaO : alcrdi/Tiipia /caracr/cem/, ijv rives trr/pol <yivovTai the second of these definitions is thus attributed by Cicero to Zeno. So Dr Reid : it is however possible that sensum is past part. pass, of sentio and is a translation of alo-dyrov in case cf. or aiadrjTiKov rather than of aL<r6r)ais, which Diog. L. VII. 51 rwv 8e (^avraaiuiv KCLT avrovs ai ^ev

L<TLV ai(r@r)TiKal at 8 ov. alcrOriTiKal ^ev al BL K.r,\. rj ai<r0r)T T)(av \a^^avojjLevai

21. Cic. Acad. I. 42, Zeno sensibus etiam fidein

tribuebat (|uod comprehensio f acta sensibus et vera illi et fidelis videbatur, 11011 quod omnia quae essent in re conrprehenderet sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam posset relinqueret quodque natura quasi normam scientiae et prin- in animis cipiuin sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum imprimerentur, e quibus non principia solum sed latiores quaedam ad rationem inveniendam viae reperiuntur. For the general sense see Zeller, p. 80, n. 1. I. 02 non quod omnia : Dr Reid cites Sext. Pyrrh. TrouciXov VTTO- Kaa"Tov rwv fyaivofMevwv i]fM,v al(r9r)rwv avd6v. TriTTTeiv SoKel olov TO jJLrf\.ov \eiov eucoSe? <y\vKv

(iBrj\ov ovv TTOTepov Trore raura? yu,oz/a? 6Vr&>9 e^et Ta>? ecrTL 8e TrotCT^ra? 77 /jLovoTTOtov fiev Trapd TTJV 8ui(f)opoi /cat KaTao~Kvr]V TU>V aiadrjTripiuiv 8id<f)opov (fraLveTai rj ~ * t tt f % juev\/ oc TWV (paivo[j,eva)v e%et Trotor^ra?, rj/j,tv vTroTTLTTTovcTL Tivcs ctvT&v, ib. 97. These passages however do not refer to Stoic teaching but are used in furtherance of the Sceptical argument. 72 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

notiones: a translation of evvoiat. It seems certain that the distinction between and trpo\rj\lrei<; evvoiai (for which see R. and P. 393 and note c. and Stein, Erkermtnis- theorie, p. 237) is not at least in terms Zenonian, though he may have spoken of tcotval ewoiai. Reid (on Acad. II. that the 30) suggests word -rrpoXirfyts was introduced by Zeno, but cf. Cic. N. D. I. 44 ut Epicurus ipse Tr/jdX^t? appellavit, quam antea nemo eo verbo nominarat, so that it is more probable that Chrysippus borrowed it from the rival school but see 1. c. 248 250. ; Stein, p. evvoia, on the other hand, used by Plato (Phaed. 73 c) in quite a general sense, and defined by the Peripatetics as 6 dBpoia- TWV TOV vov Kal /jLO<f rcav (^avrao-pLaTtav r/ crwyK6<$>a\ai(i)<Tis

7rl et<? TO /Ltepou? Ka06\ov (Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 224) must have received its special Stoic sense from Zeno. principia : it is difficult to determine whether this is a translation of a Stoic technical term, cf. Acad. II. 21.

22. Cic. Acad. I. 42, Errorem autem et temeritatem et ignorantiam et opinationem et suspicionem et uno nomine omnia quae essent aliena firmae et constantis adsensionis a virtute sapientiaque removebat. With this may be compared the Stoic definitions of

(iTrpoTTTwa-ia, dveiKaiorr]?, di>\ey!;ia, and dpaTaioTrjs quoted by Diog. L. vn. 46, 47. Terneritas is probably a translation of TrpojreTeia, a favourite word with Sextus of when speaking the dogmatists (e.g. Pyrrh. I. 20) but also used by the Stoics (Diog. vn. 48). Reid also quotes (on Ac. II. G6) Epict. d. III. 22. 104 TrpoTrerrjs

23. Stob. Eel. I. 12. 3, p. 13G, 21, Zj/Wo? < Kal our avrov> . rd rtrd elvai evvorj^ara <f>a<ri /AJre TTOKI, axravei Be nva Kal tiWaj/ei Troid (^avrdcr/jiaTa THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 73

ravra Be vrro TWV IBeas rwv dp%aia>v TrpocrayopevecrOat,. yap Kara rd evvo^ara VTroTTiTTTovTwv elvai T? t Sea?, olov dvdpwTrwv, ITTTTWV, KOivoTepov eiTrelv irdvTwv TWV fracav Kal T(av d\\o)v owoawv \eyovcnv iBeas etvai. [raura?

Be 01 ~S,Ta>LKol <tXocro(oi fyacnv dvuTrdpKTovs elvai Kal rwv Be fjmv evvorifjidrwv fjiere^eiv ?;/u,a?, TWV Trruxrewv, a? BTJ TrpocrrjyopLas Ka\ovcn, Tvyydveiv\.

Cf. Euseb. P. E. XV. 45, 01 d-no Zrjvwvos Sr&)iot evvor)-

/Ltara r//jierepa ra? t Sea?. Plut. Plac. I. 10, 4, ol OTTO

Tirjvwvos ^rcoiKol evvorip^ara jjjAerepa T? IBeas efyacrav.

Wellmami, p. 484, (followed by Stein, Erkenntnis- theorie, n. 689) suggests that this may have come from the book entitled Ka9o\iKa. Possibly this criticism of the ideas formed part of the attack upon Plato mentioned by Numenius, ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 6, p. 733, 6 8

at Ap/tecriXaov fjiev a^aero, vroXXa dv ov K ?]9e\e, Td^a Be /j,a\\ov aXX&)?, vrpo? oe TOV

i ev ^(ticriv ovTa Tl\drwva ecrKia/jbd^ei, real rrjv aTro ajj,af~r)s Trofjureiav nrncrciv KctTeOopv/Bet, \eyo)v <w? OVT dv

TOV Yl\drci)vo<; d/jLvvo/jLevov, virepBiKetv re avrov d\\a> ovBevi /LteXof el re fj,e\rjcreiev Ap/cecrtXa&), au ro? 76 /cep-

Baveiv wero aTrorpe-v^a^eyo? a< eavrov TOV \\picecri\aov. TOVTO Be yBrj Kal \\.yaOoK\ea TOV ^.vpatcoaiov Troi^cravra

TO eVi TOI)<? At both o-6<f}ia-/jt.a Kap-^r)8ovlov<f. any rate, the circumstances and the chronology indicate that the reference is not to the EtoXtTeta (Introd. p. 29). eworfiara. For the definition cf. Plut. Plac. IV. 11

<TTi Be as he vorffjia (fravTacrfia Btavoias XoycKov %u>ov, i.e., goes on to explain, ewor^d stands to ^dv-raa^a in the relation of etSo? to yevos : (^avTacr/^ara are shared with us by all other animals whereas evvoij/jiaTa belong to the gods and mankind alone. ^ig- VI I. 61, evvor//j.a Be eaTt

(f>(ivTaa-fj,a Biavoias, ovTe TL ov ovre TTOIOV, wcravel Be TI 74) THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. ov Kal axravel TTOIOV, olov yiverai dvarvTrtapia I TTTTOV teal

nva. . .iroid, i.e. they have no existence or definiteness. For the Stoic conception of n and TTOLOV, see Zeller, pp. 98 f. and 102 f. It has been inferred from this passage that the doctrine of the four categories does not belong entirely to Chrysippus (Petersen, Chrys. phil. fundam. p. 18). lS6xs. The meaning is that the Platonic ideas are identical with eWo^ara, inasmuch as they possess no objective existence, but are mere figments of the mind. Plato himself deals with this very point, Parm. 132 B

ra>v el8u>v etcaaTOV Kal d\\d...fj,t] f) rovrwv vorj^a, ovSapov avru> ev Antis- TrpoariKT) eyyiyvecrQat a\\o6i 77 fyw^als. thenes had already criticised the theory of ideas from this point of view: see Introd. p. 18.

vjroiriirrovTttv : the regular word for the presentation of external impressions to the organs of sense (e.g.

Sext. I. 40 ai ailral. ..vTroTriTTTova-i Pyrrh. ov% <f>av- raa-iai). 6ir6crwv, K.T.X. So far as it goes this passage is in agreement with Aristotle s statement that Plato recog a nised ideas of oiroa-a fyvcrei only (Metaph. A. 3. 1070 18): see Dr Jackson in Journ. Phil. x. 255, etc.

ravras rvYxavtiv. These words are not expressly attri

buted to Zeno : hence Diels followed by Wachsm. adds to the lemma Ziijvwvos the words Kal rwv a?r avrov. TWV Si TTTWO-CWV, K.T.\. This passage is extremely diffi 4 cult and is supposed to be corrupt by Zeller, ill . 2. 79

and Wachsmuth. The latter suggests ra<? 8e TTG)vvfjii(uv, K.T.\. or if TTTaxrewv is corrupt for ^

" in fine talia fere interciderint ra? Koivds TroioTijras, cf. vil. the former Math. vn. would Diog. 58," (coll. Sext. 11) read TO Tvy-^dvovra in place of rvy-^aveiv (die Gedanken THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 75 seicn in mis, die Bezeichnimgen gehen auf die Dinge). The text, as it stands, has been interpreted in three ways : (I) notitiae rerum rationi nostrae insitae sunt, nomina fortuito obveniunt, Diels. (2) Trrwcreis = omnes singulae res cuiuscumque qnalitatis )( yevi/cd TTOUI, i.e. ISeai. These impress themselves on the mind of man (Tvy%dveiv),

Petersen, 1. c. p. 82, foil. : but this interpretation of TTTUKT^ is unwarranted and is founded on a misconception of L. s Diog. vn. 58. (3) Prantl interpretation (l. p. 421, n. 63) is a combination of these two views. That the is in text sound the main is, I think, proved by Simplic. Cat. p. 54 (quoted by Petersen) 01 &e d-rro rrjs etcd\ovv rd f^ede/crd airo rov jJuere^eaOai KOI T<? rev/eras a.7ro rov rvyxdvecrdai, and Clem. Alex. VIII. 9. 26 :

" after saying that the 7TT&5crt9 for the Karijy6pr)fj,a rep.- verai" is "TO re^vecrBai" and for vavs jiyverai "TO vavv " and that Aristotle called the TTTWCT^ <yiv(T0ai, explaining he proceeds rj TTTOOCTI^ Se aaw/jLaro^ eivai

810 KOL TO croffricr/Aa e/ceivo \verat, o Xeyet?

<rov Sia rov crTOyu,aTO?, oTTep d\ri6e$, oltciav 8e

oiKia dpa Sid rov aro/j.aro^ aov ^tiep-^erai GTrep So? 1 ovSe oiKiav yap rrjv \eyofj,ei> crw^ta ovcrav, d\\d TTTUXTIV daw/jLarov ovcrav, 7)9 oiKia Tvy%dvei. A consideration of the latter passage, which it is surprising that no one has cited, warrants the suggestion that rd or some such words have fallen out after = All would then be plain : TTTWCTI^ name = was as )(eWo r) p,a thought. TTTUXTK also) (KaT7jyoprifj,a to verb (Plut. qu. Plat. X. 1, 2). For the present use of TTTftJo-69, cf. also Sext. Math. XI. 29, vi. 42, for TTTWCTI^ in

Aristotle I. see Waitz, , vol. p. 328, 329. irpua-ij-

" " " " yopia is a common noun, such as man horse (Diog, Vir. 5S, Sext. Pyrrh. III. 14) tending in practice to become identical with TTTwcrt?, though theoretically narrower. 76 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

24. Stob. Eel. I. 1 14 13, , p. 13S, (Ar. Did. 457, aiTiov & 6 elvai Si o ov Se airiov Diels), Zijvaiv <f>i}crlv crv[j,j3ej3r)K6s KCU TO p,ev aiTiov crtw/za, ov Be aiTiov Kari)- yoprj^a dSvvarov 8 elvai TO fjiev aiTiov jrapeivai ov Se ecrTiv aiTiov TO Se /AT} vTrdp^eiv. \ey6fjievov Toiavrrjv ex i SvvafJ.IV a lTlOV eCTTl Si JiJVeTaL Tl, olov Sid TTJV TO Kal Sid (frpovrjcriv jLveTai (f>poveiv TTJV ^rv^rjv yiveTai

TO i^rjv Kal Sid TO TTJV aaxppoavvijv yiveTat, <ra><f)poviv. dSvvaTov elvai Tiva <ydp aw<$>pocrvvr)s Trepi ova^s /J,T} crtixfrpovelv T/ ^u^?;? pr/ fyjv rj (frpovTjaea)? /AT} fypovelv. It is difficult to understand why Zeller, Stoics, p. 95, n. 2, regards the main point of this fragment as a gram matical distinction between noun and verb : it appears rather that Zeno is discussing the nature of aiTiov from a logical standpoint, and that KaTTjyop rjfia is introduced to explain aiTiov and not vice versa. The fragments of Chrysippus and Posidonius which follow our passage in Stobaeus should be compared with it. Zeno did not axlopt the four Aristotelian causes because his material istic views led him to regard the efficient as the only true cause.

" = " result or " o-vfiffepTjKos inseparable consequence," cf.

Stob. Eel. I. 13 ad init. aiTiov e crrt Si o TO aTroreXecr/za fj Si o crv/jiftaivei TI. This meaning of cru/i/3e/377/co? is also to be found in Aristotle, who uses the word in two distinct senses: see an elaborate note of Trendelenburg on de An. i. 1 a 8 p. 402 who quotes amongst other passages Metaph. 30 1025 a 30 Se A \eyeTai Kal aAAw? o~v(j,(3e/3r)Ko<; olov ucra KaaTu> /ca$ avTO ev vTrdp^ei fj,rj TTJ ovaia ovTa olov

TO) TO Svo flv - That Tpiywvw 6p8d<; ex crv/j,^^TjKo<f must be used in this sense here and not in its more common

" Aristotelian sense of " seems indubitable, when we read infra that the aiTiov can never be present unless accompanied by the ov aiTiov. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 77

: the materialism of o-u^a the Stoics is well known : to what it was lengths pushed may be seen from Zeller, Stoics pp. 127132, with the examples given in the notes.

: the KaTTjYop^jia ov al riov was therefore something in and corporeal, Chrys. and Posid. accordingly speak of it as non-existent. Probably this inference did not present itself to Zeno s as mind, the question of the V7rap%is of \eKTo, arose later : see further on only Cleanth. frag. 7. The present passage is illustrated by Sext. Pyrrh. HI. 14 01 [Mtv ovv ol <$ TO o-a)/j,a, do-a)/j,aTov aiTiov elval fyacnv. & av cogai aiTtov dvai Kotvorepov /car avrovs & o evepyovv yiveTai, TO olov 6 aTroTeXecr^a, &k ?;A,i09 ?; r] TOV TOV rj\wv OepfAOTTis TOV ?} yelaQai tcrjpbv TT}<; ^ucrew? TOV Kijpov. Kal ev TOVTW yap SiaTre^wvijKacriv, ol /j,ev aiTiov elvai TO TrpocnjyopLwv al-nov fydaKovTes, olov TTJS ol 8e ^uo-eeo?, KaTrjyoprjpdTwv, olov TOV -^laQai. ib. Math. IX. 211 ^TWiKol pev Tcdv aiTiov vwyia $acn Ttvos aiTiov yeveaOai, olov a^fia p,ev TO oe TTJ aapKi, daw^drov 8e TOV TepvecrOai Kal 7rd\tv s, aw/^a /lev TO Trvp, vwpaTi oe TU TOv 8e TOV /caiecrOai KaT^yopr/fAaTOS. (frpovipiv K.T.X. A parallel to this will be found at f Stob. Eel. II. 7 ll 98, 3 p. rr\v yap <f)p6vt]o-iv alpov/J.e6a Kal ov e%iv TTJV a-w^poa-vvrjv, fjid A/a TO fypovelv Kal aa)())povetv, daoo/jiaTa ovTa Kal KaTyyopr/uaTa. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 307, infers from this passage that, to not a according Zeno, single moment in life passes without but thought, that the jyeuoviKov always thinks.

25. Anonymi Te^vrj ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. I. 434, 23, Be OVTW Su Zrjvwv (ferjcri- iyria-Ls eaTt TWV ev Ty VTrodeaei

e/c^eui? et<? TO TrpayuaTwv vjrep TOV \eyovTos 7rp6o-(07rov peovcra. 78 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

of Perhaps this frag, comes from the re^vr) Zeno: is to see Introd. p. 27. Zeller inclined doubt whether the words do not belong to some other Zeno, but inas much as this anonymous writer also quotes Chrysippus is that he refers to Zeno of (p. 454, 4), the presumption Citiuin, and there is no a priori reason to discredit his authorship.

Sirens : the narrative portion of a speech contain ing the statement of facts, cf. Diog. L. vn. 43 rov Be prjropiKov \oyov ei9 re TO rrpooLp,Lov Kal els rrjv Sirjyija-iv

r Kal rd 77/369 TOI)? dvTL<covs Kal rov erri\o yov. Dion.

Hal. Ant. Rhet. X. 12 ecrrt Be rd T?}? vTrodea-ews crroL-^ela recraapa, rrpooi^iov, Birjyija-is, Tricrret?, eViXoyoi. especially excelled in his treatment of this branch of his art. Dion. H. Lys. c. 18 ev Be ra&gt; Biyyetadat rd rrpd yp.ara, Beirai Kal OTrep, ol/Jiai, /Ltepos rrXeicrrris (fipovriBos &lt;j)V\aKr}S, avrov elvai rrdvrwv dva/ji(f)tl3o\(i)&lt;i r^ovfj-aL icpdrtarov prjropwv K.r.\.

vnro06rti : cf. Sext. Math. III. 4 VTr60e&lt;Ti&lt;; Enip. 7rpo&lt;r- ev rwv eVl ayopeverai pijroptic fj i] /Aepoi"? ^ijrrjcn&lt;f.

ls TO K.T.X. "adapted to the character maintained on is technical behalf of the speaker." rrpocrwrrov )( 7rpuy/j.a. TO Be rov tce&lt;f)d\aiov Trpooiftiov Boa rcpocrwrrwv re Kal Trpajfjidrwv Dion. H. Ant. Rhet, X. 13, cf. the Latin persona. Cic. pro Mil. 32 itaque illud Cassianum cui bono fuerit in his personis valeat, pro Cluent. 78 huius Staleni persona ab nulla turpi suspicione abhorrebat. For peovcra cf. Plat. Rep. 485 D OT&&gt; ye et? ev rt al emBv^ iat, rd Kal jrdv ro &lt;r&lt;f)6Bpa peovcriv...(L Brj Trpos fiaOrjfAara roiovrov eppwjKaaiv.

26. Anonymi re%vrj ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. I. 447, 11 co9 Be Zirjvtov TrapaBeiypd ecrrt jevofxevov Trpdyparos et? ofMoiwcnv rov vvv r)rov/j,evov. Maxi- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 79 mus Planudes Walz. Rhet, ap. Gr v. 39G 7rapd8eiy/*a Be eariv, &;? Zrjvwv fyycriv, yevo/^evov Trpdy^arot aTro/jLvrj- fjLOVV(Tl$ 6t? OjJLOiW(TiV TOV VVV fyfTOV/J-eVOV. This must stand or fall frag, with frag. 25.

n-apdSfrypa : a technical term in rhetoric. Aristotle the of the as regards example an imperfect repre sentation of the Induction of the philosopher: cf. Anal. Post. I. 71 a 9 to? Kal ol 1, ai;rcy? prjTopiKol av^Trei- r *1 ^* o eartv 7"P TrapaBeiy/jLarcov, eTraywyij, ij &S oTrep eari

27. Inst. Or. iv. 2. 117 hie Quintil. expressa (verba) t ut vult Zeno sensu tincta esse debebunt. It has been supposed by some that these words are a reference to but inasmuch as apoph. 13, sensu is a very translation of inappropriate et? vovv, and Quintilian is of the narrative speaking portion of a speech, the meaning " is rather coloured by the actual impressions of sense " i.e. giving a vivid and clear representation of the actual facts.

28. Anonymi variae collections mathematicae in Hultschiana Heronis geometricorum et stereometricorum editione p. 27-5, Tavpov 2i8(Wou ea-riv v7r6fj,vr)[Aa et? YloXirelav Tl\cnwvos ev dan ravra 6 &lt;j&gt; oopiaaTo TlXdrcov TI}V yea)peTpLav... Apio-TOT6X&lt;t]s 8\..Zijva)v Se egiv ev TrpocrBe^et (^avracnwv (l/JieT(nrru&gt;rov VTTO \6yov.

This is due to Wachsmuth I. frag, (Comm. p. 12) who emends as above for the meaningless egiv TT/JO? Seii-iv (fravTaaiwv dfj,eTcnrTa)T(a&lt;? vTrobiKov, coll. Diog. L. VU. 45. It is barely credible that Zeno can have defined geometry in the same words by which Herillus certainly and he himself possibly defined knowledge. There is doubtless some mistake in the tradition: possibly p.aOrj^.arLKwv has 80 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEND. dropped out. I cannot find any evidence to illustrate Stoic views on mathematics.

rbv eiirovra 29. Plut. Sto. Rep. 8, 1, TT/JO? add &i/cr)V Sircd&lt;rr)&lt;; irplv (qu. av} dvTe\eyev o Zrjvwv, roiovro) nvl \6yw ^pw^evo^- err aKovcneov rov aTreSeigev 6 irpoTepos elirwv OVK Sevrepov err OVK \eyovros Trepas yap e^ei TO fyrovpevov aTre&ei^ev inraicovffas o/jLotov yap 009 el f^rjBe VTrr/fcovae K\ri6el&lt;; 77 8 OVK OVK erepeTKrev rjroi (nr&ei^ev fj aTreSei^ev The same is aKov&lt;rTeov apa rov Bevrepov \eyovros. 8 with preserved by Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. unimportant variations. uncertain PjS* K.T.X. A verse of authorship commonly ad referred to Phocylides on the authority of the Schol. VII. Lucian. I.e. but called by Cicero ^fevBrjcrioBeiov (Att.

Gk. 464- : cf. Ar. 725 18), see Bergk Poet. Lyr. p. Vesp. ^

TTOV rjv oo-Tt? Trplv av a^olv pvOov &lt;ro&lt;/&gt;09 e^acKev, Heracl. av aKovo-ys OVK av SiKaaais. Eur. 179 Ti? SIKTJV av fJ.vBov Kpiveiev fj yvolrj \6yov Trplv Trap* dpfyolv

The is couched in the X6-yu&gt;. argument syllogistic form which Zeno especially affected: see Introd. p. 33. Whether the first speaker proves his case or not, the second is immaterial but he argument of the speaker ; must have either proved his case or failed to do so: therefore the second speaker should not be heard. in court when the case was called VITTIKOVO-C: appeared

on answered to his name : cf. Dem. F. L. p. 423 257 avrov " ^rifioxrev vTraKovo-avrd riv Kanjyopov procured the disfranchisement of a man who had actually ap word was used peared as his accuser." The indifferently ib. 434 290 ovb* vTraKovcrai of plaintiff and defendant, p. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 81

-ij6e\ev. Meid. p. 580, 581 Ka\ov/j,evos ovo^aarL ...Sid ravr ovx VTrijKovcre. Audoc. Myst. 112 /cad 6 Krjpvg etcr/pvTre rt ? rrjv iKerijpiav Karadeirj, Kal ovSels vTrr/Kovcrev. Isae. 25 = 84 p. 49, R aTroypafais et&lt;? rr/v ftov\Y)v KaKovpywv viroywptov torero Kal ov^ VTTIJKOV- aev.

: cither KXT]0is (1) by the presiding , cf. Dem. 1174 Olymp. p. eVetS?} 8 e/azXet 6 dp-^wv et? TO

BiKaartjpiov aTravras TOI)? a/^iovS^rotWa? Kara rov VO/J.QV. Ar. 1441 dv Vesp. vj3pi eto? n]v Si/c^v ap-ywv Ka\p,or (2) the officer of the court by solemnly calling him by name. We know that this procedure (tcXr/Teva-is} was adopted in the case of a defaulting witness, and it may also have been if one of applied the parties failed to put in an ap pearance.

30. L. VII. Diog. 18, evacuee 8e TOI)&lt;? p,ev rdov daoXoiKcov Kal \6yov&lt;? dTnjpTia-fAevowi o/zotou? elvai TW dpyvpiw rca

KaOd Kal TO v6fj,ia-fxa, ovoev Se Sid ravra /SeXr/oj/a?. TOI)? oe rovvavriov dcfxo/jioiov TOi? Arrt/cot?

For the comparison of words to coins cf. Hor. A. P. 59 licuit semperque licebit signatum praesente nota producere nomen. Juv. vn. 54 qui communi feriat carmen triviale Moneta and Prof. Mayor s note. Possibly this and the came from the work following frag, Trepl \e^ewi&gt;.

: in this AXtjjavSpei ip phrase which recurs at vin. 85 I have followed Kohler (Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297) in reading AXe^az Speiw for AXegavSpLvw. It appears that Alexandria had struck no coinage in the reign of the Historia (Head, Nimiorum p. 718); on the other the hand tetradrachm of Alexander was part of the H. p. 82 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. current coinage all over Greece (ib. p. 198 foil, and see Hultsch, Gr. and Rom. Metrologie pp. 243 245).

KiKopji^vovs. . .o-oXoiKus. MSS. KKOfjL^,voi&lt;f. Bywater

(Journ. Phil. xvil. 70) reads /ce^o/i/ieVou? /ecu &lt;TO\OIKOVS and the former certainly seems necessary to restore the balance of the .

Ka6&iiv: this meaning of Ka0e\K(i&gt; is omitted by L.

and S. s. v.

\ is bracketed by v. Wilamowitz and Kohler is rightly retained by Bywater.

31. Zonarae Lex. s.v. (ro\oiKietv col. 1G(&gt;2, ov ov TO Kara Kal fj,6i fywvrjv \6yov ^(opiKeveadai oXXa eVi orav drdi evBvjMaTwv TIS ^wpiKw^ evBiBicrKr/Tai rj

ecrdir) f) a/cocr/ico? TrepnraTjj w? (firjcn V^vwv. Wachsmuth,

i. T. n. 11. Comm. p. 12, cites Cyrilli, Lex. cod. Bodl. ant, Cramer anec. IV. 190 V. ore ri? ap. p. &lt;roXoticr/Lt6&lt;j tirexvats SiaXeyerai cro\otKieiv ov povov TO fcaT(i \ej;iv teal d\\d Kal eVt oTav rt? (f)a&gt;vrjv loia)Ti&gt;iv, ^op^fiaTwi ,

ft]? evoeBvTai i] ara/cTw? ecrdiei // r//cocr/Lia)9

. Zeno is not alone in using the word in this extended sense, cf. Xen. Cyr. vm. 3. 21 Aai^epvi)? 5e Tf? TCW f)V (70\OiKOTpO&lt;t &lt;iv6pU&gt;TTOS TpOTTW.

iit\ 4v8\)fidTwv. The Athenians attached great import ance to Koap-ioTT]^ in dress as in other matters of personal behaviour. The cloak \vas required to be of a certain length, cf. Theophr. Char. 24 (Jebb) of the

Penurious Man : (fropovvTas eXrirro) TWV ^rjpwv 7(1 and to wear it in the fashionable ; style (eVi oegul d\\afrai) was a mark of sobriety. Cf. Ar. Av. 15G7

TI eV ovTa)&lt;; ov ; 8pd&lt;; ; dpLaTep d/j,7re^ei /LieTa/3a\ei9 eVt wB Be^idv ,

^o-Oi^. How carefully children were trained THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 83

in this be seen respect may from three passages of Plutarch cited by Becker, Charicles, E. T. 237. Of. pp. 230, e.g. de Educ. Puer. 7 rf} ^v Segia rd -rraiSta a-vveO^eiv 8exe&lt;T0ai T? K(iv rpo&lt;j)d&lt;}, Trporelveie r^v dpiarepdv, e-rriTifjudv. aKoo-fxcos irepnraT^. Fast walking in the streets was so severely criticised that it was a circumstance Avhich be used to an might damage opponent before a cf. jury ; Dem. Pantaen. 981 52 p. N^/iWo? 8 eVfyftwk Lri,


and see on id. (f)opel Sandys Steph. I. 68, 77. Lysias such matters protests against being considered of any importance law court, Or. xvi. 19 7ro\\oi in^a ^ yap

KO.KWV aiTioi yeyovaaiv, erepot Se rwv TOIOVTWV vroXXa Kuyadd VfJba? eiaiv elp

32. Sc\t. Math. II. Emp. 7, evdev yovv K al 7^ o Ktriei)? OTM epwrriOels Siafapei 8ta\KTiKi} priropLK^ o-uo-r/^e^a? TVV Kal Trd\Lv e " " Xelpa ^aTrXwa-a? fyrj TOVTM Kara ^v T^V TO avcrTpo^v arpoyyvXov Kal /3paXv T^V rdrrcov Sid 8e 9 ^ IStwfia r;/ ^a-rrXwae^ Ka l ruv SaKTV\a)v TO vrXari) rfc pijropiKj^ Svvdpew vo?. Cic. Fin. n. 17 Zenonis est in.juam hoc Stoici omnem vim ut loquendi, jam ante Aristoteles, in duas tributam esse partes, rhetoricae palinam, dialecti- cam similem esse pugni dicebat, quod loquerentur rhetores, dialectici autem compressius. Orat, 32, 113 Zeno a quidem ille, quo disciplina Stoicorum est, maim demonstrare solebat inter quid has artes interesset, nam cum compresserat digitos pugnumque fecerat, dialecticam aiebat eiusmodi esse; cum autem diduxerat et manum dilataverat, palmae illius similem eloquentiam esse dicebat. Quint. List. Or. n. 20 Itaque cum duo sint genera orationis, altera perpetua, quae rhetorice dicitur, altera G 2 84 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

dialectice Zeno adeo con- concisa, quae ; quas quidem illam iunxit ut hanc compressae in pugiium manus, similem. explicitae, diceret to be Although this extract and the next purport it has been merely spoken remarks of Zeno, thought better to insert them at this place, as distinctly belonging in their form they to \oyiKti. Very probably original came from some written work. terse and as TO (rrpoyyvXov is used of a compact

: thus Dion. Halic. opposed to a florid and elaborate style : in contrasting the styles of Lysias and says

rd KOL eK&lt;f&gt;epeiv ev ra&gt; o-varpetyeiv vor/fj.ara crTpoyyvXa)? \wriav w&lt;? 7T/30? d\7)0ivov&lt;; dywvas 7rmj8eiov d-jre^e^o^v translation "well rounded" while (Isocr. 11). The seeming a false to preserve the metaphor conveys impression.

33. Cic. Acad. II. 145, At scire negatis quemquam Zeno rem ullam nisi sapientem. Et hoc quidem gestu inanum conficiebat. Nam, cum extensis digitis adversam

"huiusmodi est." Deinde, ostenderat, "visum" inquiebat huiusmodi." cum paullum digitos contraxerat, "adsensus com- Turn cum plane compresserat pugnumque fecerat, dicebat: ex similitudine prehensionem illam esse -qua nomen ei rei quod antea non fuerat Kard\ri^nv imposuit. Cum autem laevam manum adverterat et pugnum arte vehementerque compresserat scientiam talem esse esse neminem. dicebat, cuius compotem nisi sapientem finds in this Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 181, 313, of the tension but passage an indication theory, surely this is somewhat far-fetched, for although it is no doubt true that the Stoic theory of knowledge is often made to the introduction of rovo* depend on TOJ/O?, yet probably reason 126 is later than Zeno. He suggests with more p. in the of that the activity of the i^p.oviKov process THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 85 reasoning may be inferred from this, i.e. the r/y/j,oviKov is not merely receptive (Kara Treiatv] but also productive (/COT evepyeiav). scire : we have already seen that eVtcrr^/i?; is peculiar to the wise man, while /caraX^-^t? is also shared by the

: see note on 16. Sextus of the &lt;/&gt;au\o? frag. speaking inconsistency of the Stoics, who would not admit that even Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus had attained to perfect wisdom, cites as a Stoic dogma travra dyvoei o VII. Reid Sext. II. 83 &lt;f&gt;av\o&lt;; (Math. 434). quotes Pyrrh. ev oioTrep TTJV fj,ev d\r)0iav JJLOVW crTrovSaLW (fracrlv elvat, TO 6e (ikijOes Kal ev (pav\w evSe^erai yap rov (bav\ov d\r)0es TL eiirelv. = visum (fiavracria frag. 7. adsensus = crvyKara6e(Ti,^ 19. = 10. frag. coiuprehensionem Kara\rj \lrtv, see on frag. scientiam, frag. 17.


34. Cic. Acad. I. 39, (Zeno) nullo modo arbitrabatur effici quicquam posse ab ea (scil. natura) quae expers esset corporis nee vero aut quod efficeret aliquid aut quod efficeretur posse esse non corpus. Zeno adopted the Platonic dogma that everything which exists is capable either of acting or being acted upon, ct. Soph. 247 D \eyco Bt] TO Kal oiroiavovv fjievov ovvafAiv, err et? TO Troielv erepov OTLOVV TT

(V et? TO 7ra6eiv Kal o~/j,iKp6TaTOV VTTO TOV (f)av\OT(iTov, el K(iv fjiovov elaaTca^, TCU.V TOVTO OVTWS elvai, : he differed, however, widely from Plato in limiting these things to material objects. For Stoic materialism cf. Pint. plac. iv.

"20 TTUV TO Kal TTOLOVV yap Bpca/J.evov 17 au&gt;^a (quoted by Stoics Zeller, p. 126) and further references ap. Stein, Psychologic n. 21. For the application of this doctrine 86 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. to theories of sensation and thought see the authoriti collected in Dr Reid s note.

35. Diog. L. VII. 134, oWet & avTols ap^a? elvac TO TO OVV TWV 0\0)V BvO TO 7TOIOVV Kal 7rdo"%OV. fJ,fV oe Tcoiovr Trdayov elvai TIJV CITTOIOV ovcriav Trjv v\rjv TO TOV ev avTrj \6yov TOV Oeov. TOVTOV yap ovTa difttov 8i&lt;t 8e TO Trduri^ v\rjs BtjfMLOvpjelv etfacrra. ri6r](Ti ooy/J.a

TO&gt; Plut. TOVTO Zirjvwv 6 Ktrtei)? ev Trepl overtax. plftc. TOV Oebv /cat I. 3. 39 Ziijvwv W^acreou Ktrtei)? dp%ds p.ev

&lt;TTt atTtO&lt;? & TOV TT U&gt;V TTOltV TTjV V\TJV, 6 fieV TOV l] Stob. Eel. I. 10. 14 f. 120, 17 crrot^eta 8e rerrapa. Mvacreov KtTiei)? p%a? TOV Beov Kal TTJV vXrjv crToi-^eia the Achill. rerrapa. Diels,p. 289, adds following passages:

124 E o KiTievs 9 ^vat T(" I; o\a)v Tat. p. Lr]vwv "PX" ^*7** TO 8e TO deov KOI vXrjv, 6wv pw TTOIOVV, vXrjv Trotovpevov, a&lt;$&gt; de Provid. I. 22 wv TO. Tea(rapa crToi^ela yeyovevai. Philo, Zeno Mnaseae films aerein deum materiam et elementa qua- is a blunder from which tuor [aerem arising apX"? (Diels), seems better than Stein s suggestion (Psych, n. 31) to sub aff. iv. 12 6 stitute aethera]. , Gr. cur. Z-tjvwv Be 6 KiTtei/?, 6 Mi/ao-eou, 6 KpaTT/ro? ^otTT/r?}? T//9 Z

TOV deov Kal 9 &gt;1 crl ajpeo-eo)? Trjv v\r)v PX" f(f l Cf. Sext. Math. ix. 11: further authorities for the 141. Stoic school in general are given by Zeller, p. as the active efficient In distinguishing between God cause of the universe and formless indeterminate matter is on the as its underlying substratum Zeno following lines laid down by Plato in the and by Aristotle, 48 of 8vo Tat cf. Theophr. frag. Wimmer (speaking Plato) o a TTOtdv TO fj-ev vTroKeipevov o5? v\r)V, pva&lt;? /SouXerai TO 8 &5? ahiov Kal KIVOVV, o Trpoo-ayopevei Travoex^f, TOV Oeov Kal TTJ : see TreptaTrret TTJ TayaOov Svvdpei 25. we remember that God is the Introd. p. When by THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 87

Stoics identified with fiery breath, the purest and rarest of all substances, while on the other hand the world itself is a merely temporal manifestation of the primary fire, it becomes apparent that the Stoic dualism is ultimately reducible to a and that the system is essentially like hylozoistic, those of the early lonians (Zeller, Stoics, p. 155, (5. Stein, Psychologic n. 25, collects the passages which prove this). How far this was worked out by Zeno may be doubted : indued there is no evidence to show that he ever passed beyond the stage of regarding the dual origin of the world as fundamental, and the opinion is now prevalent that Cleanthes by his principle of rovos was the first to consciously teach the pantheistic doctrines, which subsequently became characteristic of Stoicism.

ST]|Aiovp-yiv : a favourite Platonic word, recalling the ovpyo? of the Timaeus. For the distinction between d and cf. L. VII. 13-i Se crroi-^ela Diog. Sia&lt;j&gt;epeiv Kai crTOi^etcr r9 p,ev yap elvai dyevvtjTovs Kal d TCI Se /card crror^eta r&gt;}v eKTrvpaxTiv

36. Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 1. p. 571 Diels Xpv-

/cat, o t vTredevro Ztrjvwv Kal avrol dp-^rjv fiev Oeov 0-w/j.a ovra TO KaOaptOTaTov Bid jrdvTwv Be avTov. Birjrcet,v rrjv -npovoiav Galen. Hist, Philos. 16. p. 241. Diels 608 HXarcof ovv KOL 6 p. /J.GV Zir/vwv Sr&u/co? Trepi overtax TOV Oeov TT;? 8te\T]\v66Te^ ov-% o/ioi &j? Trepi raur?;? XX 6 Yl\aTO)v fj,ev 0eov daw [JLCLTOV , 7^r]vwi&lt;

Trepi r//9 popfyr^ fj,rj8ev dpy/coTes [if we may rely on Diels text here, some modification will be required in Stein, Psychologic n. 88, where Kiihn s reading ov Koa-fMOV d\\d Trapd TavTa...Ti d\\o is adopted].

Cf. Tatian c. generally ad Graec. 25 p. 162 c (speaking of the rt? elvai 8e d Stoics) awfjud \eyei deov, eya&gt; August, adv. Acad. in. 17. 38 (quoted below). SS THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

" T& KaOopiiraTov. God is spoken of as being Fire, Aether, Air, most commonly as being Trvevfia or Atmo spheric Current, pervading everything without excep tion, what is most base and ugly as well as what is the most beautiful," Zeller, Stoics p. 148, who gives authorities in the notes, tcadapwrarov is used with vil. 375 ot Se special reference to Sttjiceiv, cf. Sext. Emp.

TO iv l 7r 3 ( TOVTO eTTir TrveVfia fyvo X / [ri/TTtwo-ti/] XeTTTO/Ltepeo-Taror teal evpovv Trapd ra rotavra TWV of those of Ttav vTrdpxov. Ar. Metaph. I. 8. 3, 4 (speaking his predecessors who had explained generation by a-vyicpi- cris and Stdtcpifris) rfj fj,ev yap dv S6ete &lt;noi^iw^e(na-rov eivai irdvTwv e% ov yiyvovrai o-wytcpicrei irpwrov, roiovrov Kal \e7TTOTarov av rwv &6 TO fiiKpo^epea Tarov irj &lt;ra)fia- TO3V. SiOTrep offot TTvp dp%r)V Ti@acri yLtaXtTTa 0/10X0- yovfj.va)s dv ra&gt; \6yw TOVTW \eyoiev. Krische, Forschungen p. 382. wpovoiav like rationem in the next frag, brings into pro of minence the spiritual side of the Stoic conception God, which is everywhere strangely blended with the material.

37. Cic. N. D. I. 36, rationem quandam per omnem rerum naturam pertinentem vi divina esse affectam putat. Cf. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36) Diels. p. 592 \eye 8e Trdvra ^trjKeiv TO Oelov.

rationem : the Heraclitean \6yos, Introd. p. 22.

38. , ad Nat. n. 4, ecce enim Zeno quoque materiam mundialem a deo separat et eum per illam tamquam mel per favos transisse dicit. Cf. id. adv. Hermog. 44 Stoici enim volunt deum sic per materiam decucurrisse quomodo mel per favos (quoted by Stein, Psychologie, p. 35, n. 43). for favos: KTjpia. Zeno s fondness simile has been THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 89

observed upon in the Introd. p. 33. s lines are well known, Georg. IV. 219 sqq. His quidam signis atque haec exempla secuti Esse apibus partem divinae mentis et haustus Aetherios dixere deum ire omnes ; namque per Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum. It is curious that should have suggested themselves to both writers, though in a different way, in connection with the same thought, cf. Cic. Acad. n. 120 cuius ulivinae sollertiae) vos majestatem deducitis usque ad apium formicarumque perfectionem ut etiam inter deos Myrmecides aliquis minutorum opusculorum fabricator fuisse videatur.

separat: if this is pressed, we must conclude that

Zeno never identified God with matter : see n. on frag. 35.

39. Cic. N. D. I. 36, Zeno naturalem legem divinam osse censet eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem pro- hibentemque contraria. Lactant. Inst. I. 5 Item Zeno (deum nuncupat) .divinam naturalemque legem. Mimic. Felic. Octav. 19. 10 Zeno naturalem legem atque divinam... omnium esse principiura.

Cf. eia&gt;@ev 6 Diog. L. VII. 88, a&gt;&lt;? djrayopeveiv vofAos o KOIVOS oTrep ecrrlv 6 opOos \oyos bid TTCIVTWV ep^o^evos o

avros (t)V TGO Ati KaOrjye/Jioi i TOVTW r?;? rwv OVTWV Stoitcij-

&lt;re&)? OVTC. Schol. on II. 9 hoc secundum Stoicos dicit, qui adfirmant mundum prudentia ac lege firmatum, ipsumque deum esse sibi legem. Law regarded in its moral rather than its physical aspect is defined in similar

1 TI. = terms in Stob. Eel. 7. II p. 96, 10 Floril. 46, 12 rov

re 6i&gt;ra vofJiov crTrovSaiov elvai, fyacri \oyov opdov Trpoa- TdKTlKOV /JiV &V TTOLlJTeOV, (ITrayOpeVTlKOV 8e U)V 0V TTOi-

at II. 7. II 1 4. rjreov repeated , p. 102, Gods and men are influenced by the same law " quae est recti Cic. II. praeceptio pravique depulsio" N.D. 78. 90 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Law is the human counterpart of the "ratio summa insita in natura" id. Leg. I. 18. The origin of law is simultaneous with that of the divine mind: quamobrem lex vera atque apta ad jubendum et ad vetandum ratio est recta summi lovis, id. ib. II. 10. For Zeno Right exists and not 0e&lt;ri, cf. Krische 371. &lt;f&gt;v&lt;rei merely p. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 708.

40. c. Bet Philodemus Trepl evo-e/3. 8, TTJV &lt;S&gt;vva/j,iv

ovcrav o-vva&lt;TT&gt;ri/ci oi/ce&lt;t&gt;&&gt;&lt;&gt; TWV )v pepa&gt;&lt;v&gt; 7rpo&lt;&lt;&gt;

fcai K...u&gt;v 8 /cat (i&gt;\\ij\a TI]V ava&lt;TO\i}&gt;v rj&lt;\i&gt;ov

Ki&gt;&lt;K\rjatv&gt; 77 TreploBov. The position of these words with reference to their context corresponding to Cic. N.D. I. 36 points to Zeno s

" authorship. Stoica frustula dubitanter ad Zenonem

" refero Diels p. 542. n}v Svvajnv. This is evidently a Stoic description of God as the power which binds the parts of the world together and keeps them in union.

o-wa-rrriKTiv. We should expect a-we/cri/c^v, which is the more natural word in this connection. Sext. Math.

IX. 84 VTTO avrov avdyicr) dpa rfjs apiarrj&lt;f (rov aL eVel teal Trepie^ei ras Trdvrwv 8e Tvy%(ivovcra 6eos ecrriv. On the other hand and the like are to avva&lt;f)}] technically applied

the structure of manufactured articles, which are said t&lt;&gt;

be CK crvvaTrTOfjLevwv) (^i]vwp,iva : ib. 78 etc (rvvaTTTO^ikvutv Be TO, eK re KO,\ ev vevov- TrapaiceL^vfov Trpos n tce&lt;f)(i\aiov

TOJV crvvecTTWTa w? aXutret? /cat TrvpyicrKoi /cat vijes.

41. Cic. N.D. i. 36, aethera deum dicit (Zeno). Ter- tullian adv. Marcion I. 13 deos pronuntiaverunt...ut Zeno aerem et aetherem. Minuc. Fel. 19. 10 aethera interdiu omnium esse principium. Cic. Acad. II. 126 Zenoni et fere reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deua [if THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 91

is pressed here, it points to the exception of Cleanthes, but see on Cleanth. fr. 15]. aethera not to be confounded with dr]p, which is one of the four elements and to destruction aerem in subject ; Tertull. is probably a blunder, unless with Stein, Psych, n. 80, ant should be read for et. The aether here in

is an question equivalent of Trvev/Jia or of Trvp re^vi/cov, i.e. it is merely one of the labels convenient to express the material essence of God. Neither Trvp nor aldrjp is regarded in itself as a complete description. For the distinction between the Stoic al6r]p and the Heraclitean see Trvp Stein, Psychologic p. 20 and n. 31. The Stoic deity is at once corporeal and rational: but how far it may be said to have been personified cannot be determined: in fact, as has been remarked, the ancients seem to have grasped the notion of with much less distinctness than modern thinkers.

42. 1 Stob. Eel. I. 1. 29 p. 85, 9, Zrjvtav o Sr&n/co? vovv

Koapov TTVpivov (scil. 6eov (iTrefrjvaTo). August, adv. Acad. ill. 17. 38 nam et deum ipsurn ignem putavit (Zeno). Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 1. 29 p. 38, 2 avwrdrw irdvrwv vovv evaidepiov elvai 6e6v. For the Stoic conception of the World-Soul see Stein,

Psychologic p. 41, who distinguishes the world soul from the Aether God, the former being an offshoot from the latter. "Die Weltseele ist nur ein Absenker jenes Ur- pneumarestes der als Gott Aether miser Weltganzes sie ist als Ausfluss der Gottheit kimst- nmspannt ; jenes lerische gottliche Feuer (Trvp re^vi/cov) das die Keimkriifte (cTTrep/xari/coi)? \6yovs) der Weltbildung im allgemeinen und der Einzelbildungen insbesondere in sich enthalt." In regarding i/oO? as an indwelling material essence Zeno revived the position formerly taken up by Diogenes of 92 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Apollonia in opposition to Anaxagoras : see the fragment quoted by Zeller, Pre-Socraties, E. T. i. p. 287 n. 7. MSS corrected to Krische The Koa-fjMv was Ko&lt;rfiov by

Hirzel II. 2 p. 378, who supplies deov dire^r/varo. p. 220, to a after otherwise KOI prefers put comma KO&lt;T(J,OV: TTI/PIVOV is necessary.

43. Themist. de An. 72 b [ed. Speng. n. p. 64, 25] Be Kol aVo Bid TOI? Z^IXMI/O? avp&lt;f&gt;a)vos rj Sofa teal overlap Tre^oirr/Kevai rov 6eov Tt$6/Lte i&gt;ot&lt;? TTOV elvai Trot) e TTOV Be TTOV Be /j,ev vovv "^rv^rjv (frvcriv efty. This same force, appearing in different substances, is called as the bond of union for eft&lt;? inorganic matter, in the case of in the case of animals, (/&gt;i)eri&lt;? plants, ^rv^} and vovs as belonging to rational beings. Diog. L. vn. 139 Bi

T&lt;av u&gt;v w&lt;? w? Bid TGOV oarwv teal fMev ydp eft? Ke^u&gt;prjKev cf. vevpwv 8t (av Be &lt;o? vovs w? Bid TOV Tjye/AoviKov, Cleanth. Frag. 51. Some Stoics seem however to have denied this distinction between ^w^r/ and vovs. Nemes. Nat. Horn. c. 1 (quoted by Stein, Psych, pp. 92, 3) rti/e? Be ov BiecrreiXav OTTO T^? ^^X }? TOV vovv d\\d rfjs ovcrias avrrjs yyeftovitcov elvai TO voepov i/yovvrai. Stein however is not justified in holding that the living principle of animals a between and occupies position midway &lt;f&gt;v&lt;ri&lt;; will 44. tyv)(ri, as be shown on Cleanth. frag. That the passage is good evidence that the distinction between and is Zenonian be inferred from eft?, &lt;j&gt;v&lt;ri&lt;; ^rv^ may the words &lt;rt^4&lt;cuz/o9 1} Sofa.

44. Lactant. de Vera Sap. c. 9, Zeno rerum naturae dispositorem atque artificem universitatis \6yov praedicat quern et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum lovis nuncupat. Tertull. Apol. 21 Apud vestros quoque sapientes \6yov id est sermonem atque rationem constat artificem videri universitatis. Hunc enim Zeno dcterminat THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 93 factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundeni et fatuin vocari et deum et animura lovis et necessitatem omnium renim. Mimic. Fel. 19. 10 rationem deum vocat Zeno. Lact. Inst. IV. 9 siquidem Zeno rerum naturae dis- positorem atque opificem universitatis \6yov praedicat quern et fatuin et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum lovis nuncupat: ea scilicet consuetudine qua solent lovem pro deo accipere.

45. Stob. Eel. I. 5. 15. p. 78, 18, Zr/vcov 6 STOH/COS- ev TM Trepl (ucre&)9 (TTJV el/j,ap/J,evr]v) Svvafiiv KivrjTifcrjv TT/S Kara ravrd /cat (ocravro)? 1^X779 IJVTIVO, /j,rj 8ia(f)epeii&gt;

TTpovoiav Kol (frvcriv Ka\iv. Theodoret, Graec. Aff. Cur.

VI. 14. p. 87, 26 Zi]va)v Be 6 Ktrei)? Svvafiiv KeK\rj/ce 8e /cat rrjv elfJLap^evr]v KivriTiKrjv rfjs v\r}&lt;? TT)I/ avrtjv irpovoiav KOL fyvcriv wvofACKrev. receives different (ii^ 8ia(j&gt;piv. God names, while his essence is constant, owing to the various phases of his union with matter Si (ra&lt;? Trpocrrjjopia^ fj,era\afji/3aveiv

0X779 T^? v\r)s 8t ?)? Ke-^wpij/ce Trap(iX\a%av Stob. Eel. I.

1. 29 b p. 37, 23, according to Diels and Wachsmuth a mistake for $ia St ra? T^? V\TJ&lt;? r;? Ke^copTjKe TTapa\\a%eis}. Thus he is Fate as acting in accordance with a constant law, Forethought as working to an end, and Nature as creator of the word. Cf. Athenag. Supplic. c. 6. p. 7 if oi &e (iTTo r?/9 error?? K(iv Tat9 Trpoo-rjyoplais Kara ra9 St TO TOV 7rapa\\aei&lt;&gt; T&gt;79 1^X779, ^9 &lt;f)a(ri Trvevp.a ^wpelv

TO Qtlov TU&gt; 6eov, 7r\rjOvva&gt;o-L Tolf ovofAacri, &lt;yovv

eva vofAi^ovcri TOV BeoV et yap 6 ^ev Oeos Trvp

o i Ka 019 e/cacrTa /ca TOU9 cnrepiJLaTiKovs yovs eifj,apfj,ei&gt;r]i&gt;

yiveTcti, TO oe Trvev/^a avTov $ir;Ki St o\ov TOV

6 6eo$ et9 /car CIVTOVS Zev&lt;; fj,ev KCLTO, TO %eov 7779

r/ H/3a oe KaTa TOV depa /cat rd \onrd 94 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

4 7)9 K-^wpr}Kev Ka\ov^vo&lt;^. In this connection it may be observed thatGercke(Chrysippea, p. 097) is mistaken in speaking of a fragment of Zeno as preserved by Aristocles ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 14. The reference there is to the Stoics generally and not to Zeno in particular.

45 A. L. VII. 140, xaff 8e ra Diog. eipap^evrjv &lt;f&gt;acn real i \pvai7nros... Tiocrei?&gt;a)i&gt;io$...Kai Be.

is Since ei/j.ap/jLevrj identical with Trpovoia, it follows that everything is produced Kara irpovoiav. Cleanthes, however, demurred to this (frag. 18).

46. Cic. N.D. II. 57, Zeno igitur ita naturam definit ut earn dicat ignem esse artificiosum ad gignendum pro- gredientem via. Censet enim artis maxime proprium esse creare et gignere, quodque in operibus nostrarum artium manus efficiat, id multo artificiosius naturam efficere, id est, ut dixi, ignem artificiosum magistrum ar reliquarum. Cic. Acad. I. 39 Zeno statuebat ignem esse ipsam naturam. N.D. in. 27 naturae artificiose ut ait ambulantifi, Zeno. Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 9) adds Tertull. ad. Nat. II. 2 cuius (ignis) instar vult esse naturam Zeno.

The Greek of the definition is rj eVrt &lt;f&gt;va-i&lt;; irvp re^vt- KOV 6Sc5 /3dSi%ov et? yeveaiv, Diog. L. VII. 156. Clem. Alex. v. Strom, p. 597. ^^0-49 is only another name for in his God viewed creative capacity. Hence Stob. Eel. I. 1 1. 29 20 ot Sr&H/fol p. 37, voepov 6eov aTro^aivovrai irvp 6Bu) eVt (3dSiov yeveaei rcotrfAov, e/j,7repiei\r](f)6&lt;;

cr7rp/j,a.TiKoi&gt;s \oyovs Kad 01)9 airavra Ka0*

yiverai : Athenag. 1. c. Wellmann, p. 472 and Weygoldt p. 35 think that \0709 cnrep^anKo^ is a Zenonian

expression. So Stein, Psych, p. 49 and n. 87. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 95

47. Tatian ad Graec. c. 3, p. 143c, Kal u Qeos d-rro-

KdK(ai&gt; /car avrov (scil. Zijvwva) Troirjnjs, ev re Kal Kal (TKu&gt;\ri%i dppr)Tovp&lt;yoi&lt;; KaTa&lt;yLvop,evos.

Cf. Clem. Alex. ov&gt;e Protrept. 5 60 prjv rot)? avro T?;? 8id TrapeXevcrofAac 7racr7/9 V\TJS Kal Bid T?; TO Oeiov SujKeiv \eyovTas- ot Karaia-^vvovcnv rrjv (f)i\oo-o(f)iav: Scxt, Pyrrh. III. 218 ^TCOCKO! Se

Kal Sid TU&gt;V &if}Koi&gt; elSe^Owv. Cic. Acad. II. 120 cur deus omnia nostra causa cum faceret sic enim voltis tantam vim natiicum viperarumquc fccerit? cur mortifera tain multa ot porniciosa maricjue dispersorit? We have no information as to what answer Zeno made to this but the objection, later Stoics said that physical evils served a so ultimately good purpose: Chrysippus ap. Pint. Sto. 4 Rep. 21, quoted by Zeller, p. 189. As to the existence of evil moral see on Cleanth. fr. 48, 1. 17 and s Wellmann discussion at p. 472.

48. Cic. N. D. II. 58, Ipsius vero mundi qui omnia complexu suo coercet et continet natura non artificiosa s(jlum sod plane artifex ab eodem Zcuonc dicitur consultrix et provida utilitatum opportunitatumque omnium. An ingenious explanation of this difficult passage is given by Stein, Psychologic, pp. 42, 43 in accordance with his view of the distinction between World-Soul and

" Aether-God. Die natura artificiosa ist unseres Erach- tens die Weltseele, wahrend die natura plane artifex sich auf den Gott Aether oder das -I^/JLOVLKOV dor Welt bezieht." The irvev^a which permeates the universe is ignis artificiosus and only secondarily represents God, since it is an efflux from him. It cannot be described as a plane artifex, term which is applied to God (awp.a TO whereas the world-soul is Ka6apu&gt;Ta.Toi&gt;), less icadapbv from its combination with matter. 96 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

of L. artifex : probably a translation Texvirr)? Diog. it VII. 86, but Hirzel II. p. 220 represents by fypiovpyos. in which case cf. Diog. L. vn. 137.

49. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 290, Plerique tamen silvam separant ab essentia, ut Zeno et Chrysippus. Silvam quippe dicunt esse id quod subest his omnibus quae habent qualitates, essentiam vero primam rerum omnium silvam vel antiquissimum fundamentum earum, suapte natura sine vultu et informe : ut puta aes, aurum, ferrum, et caetera huius modi silva est eorum, quae ex iisdem fabrefiunt, non tamen essentia. At vero quod tarn his quam ceteris ut sint causa est, ipsum esse substantiam. This passage shows that Zeno distinguished between ovaia and v\rj the former the indeterminate and formless matter underlying the universe, and the latter the stuff out of which a particular thing is made. V\T) is thus from one point of view the more general term, since ovaia ad Cat. Schol. Arist. = TrpvTr) v\ri (frag. 51). Cf. Dexipp. Brandis 45 a 21 eVri TO inroictificvov St,TTov Kal Kara TOI)? ev TO &lt;TToa&lt;? Kal Kara TOI)&lt;? Trpe&lt;r/3vTepov&lt;; pev \eyo-

oj&lt;? avroto? pwTov v7roKelfj,6vov rj v\rj i]v Swa^ei crdo^a 6 8e TO iroiov A/3i&lt;TTOTeXr;9 &lt;f)rj&lt;rlv Sevrepov VTTOKei^evov

t Si K.T.\. Arist. o KOIVWS r) co? v^icrraro Similarly Metaph. VII. 4. 1044 a 15 distinguishes irpwrr] and oiKeia v\rj and ib. iv. 24. 1023 a 27 says that material origin may be in two Kara TO /COT specified ways r) TrpwTov yevos 1} (ITTai Til TO VGTaTOV 6i8o9 olov CTTl flV &lt;W? Ta TT)KTCl % fusible comes from COTL uSaTo? (i.e. as being water) The of view of Posi- 8 eo&lt;? eK ^a\Kov o dvopids. point

is different : he holds ovaiav donius &ia&lt;f&gt;epeiv TI}V T?;? ovcrav KdTii 7rivoia TTJV &lt;avTTjv&gt; Tr)V v-noaTacriv, C I. 11. 5 22. Wellmann Stob. Eel. , p. 133, (Neue it is Jahrb. vol. 115, p. 808) denies that a necessary inference THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 97

from this passage that Zeno taught the doctrine of the four . Stein, Psych, n. 73, explaining the passage generally as above, apparently identifies ova-La with Kotvctif TTOLOV, and V\TJ with /Siax? TTOLOV, but this distinction is a subordinate one, for ovaia is entirely distinct from TTOIOV, whether KOIVWS or ISlax;, as Dexipp. I.e. shows.

50. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 292. Deinde Zeno hanc ipsam essentiam finitam esse dicit unamque earn communem omnium quae sunt esse substantiam, dividuam quoque et usque quaque mutabilem : partes quippe eius verti, sed non interire, ita ut de existentibus consumantur in nihilum. Sed ut innumerabilium diversarum, etiam cerearum figurarum, sic neque formam neque figuram nee ullam omnino qualitatem propriam fore censet funda- menti rerurn omnium silvae, coniunctam tamen esse et semper inseparabiliter cohaerere alicui qualitati. Cum- que tarn sine ortu sit quam sine interitu, quia neque de non existente subsistit neque consumetur in nihilum, non deesse ei ac spiritum vigorem ex aeternitate, qui moveat earn rationabiliter totam interdum, nonnumquam pro portione, quae causa sit tarn crebrae tamque vehe- mentis universae rei conversionis ; spiritum porro motivum ilium fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem rationabi- lem, quae vivificans sensilem mundum exornaverit eum ad nunc hanc, qua inlustratur, venustatem. Quern qui dem beatum animal et deum adpellant. finitam. This is in strong contrast with Epicurean

: it follows from the teaching Stoic doctrine of the unity of the and is connected with that of world, the (1 of cf. Stob. I. space, Chrysippus ap. Eel. 18. 4 p. 161, 19 TOV Se TOTTOV full (i.e. space) TreTrepacr/jievov Sid TO (JL^GV aTTetpov elvat,. KadaTrep Be TO (rw/jiaTiKov Tre-rre- H. P. 7 98 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

TO VII. 150 paapevov elvat OUTO&gt;? acrw^arov aTretpov, Diog. aiiTOix; ovaia fcal The crft)/za oe ea-Tt tear r/ TreTrepaa-^evrj. who con Stoic view is refuted by Lucr. I. 10081051, est material. cludes thus : infinita undique 41 TO KWOV Similarly Diog. L. X. are ydp fy a-rretpov av ra d\\ TO. oe aw^a-ra eapiapeva, ovoa.fj.ov epeve trw^ara, Kevov OVK tyepero Kara TO d-jreipov oieaTrappeva, eypvra

ra&lt;? dvTiKOTrds. TO, VTrepeioovTa teal aTe\\ovTa KCLTCL unamque earn etc. See on frag. 51. one of the most cerearum : wax is chosen as being VII. 375 6 pliable substances. Cf. Sext. Math. paXaKw- N % \ r i i X VTTO da raro? Kr)pos...TV7rovTai pen TWOS apa vorjfiaTi TOV TVTTOV. A close vypoTrjTa ov avvk^i Se very parallel will be found in Ov. Met. xv. 169: (of ) cera utque novis facilis signatur figuris, nee manet ut fuerat, nee formas servat easdem, animam sic sed tamen ipsa eadem est; semper eandem

esse, sed in varias doceo migrare figuras. etc. Cf. Posid. Stob. Eel. I. 11. neque formam ap. 5^ teal a-rroiov KOI 18 TWV o\a)v ova- lav i&gt;\tjv p. 133, TTfV IOLOV i v elvai icaff ovov ovoev d-rroTeTay^ov ex del 8 ev TIVI ovoe TroioTijTa fcaff avTrjv (T^H.O.TI this the Stoics KOI TrotoTT? elvai. In respect simply of cf. Z. 3. adopted Aristotle s conception v\r), Metaph. TI TTOO-OI/ B" icaff avTrjv /nrjre fir)Te 1029 a 20 Xey&&gt; v\r)i&gt; f} a\\o ol? TO ov. Arist. ap. fj.r)T prj&ev \eyeTai, wpHTTai, thus: Selv Eel. I. 11. 132 foil, concluding Stob. 4, p. ydp^ Kai avvooov 717309 TTJV TOV dfi^oiv (i.e. v\i)s etSou?) T^? between the two ffwuaTos v-TTOffTaa-iv. The distinction as schools is that, whereas the Stoics denned v\rj o-w/xa b Aristotle declared it to be (Stob. Eel. I. 11. 5 p. 133, 16), but this distinction is more trtw/iaTt/c?) merely, apparent than real. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 99

sine ortu: rw infra diStos, avyxpovos Oeu&gt;, frag. 51. neque de nan existente : the denial of avrXco? yeveais K is to fir/ OVTOS common all . See of Tyndall, fragments Science p. 91 (quoted by Munro on

" Lucr. I. 150), One fundamental thought pervades all these statements, there is one taproot from which they all spring : this is the ancient notion that out of nothing nothing comes, that neither in the organic world, nor in the inorganic, is power produced without the expenditure of other Cf. power." Posidonius ap. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 7,

2, e/c TO&gt;V OVK ovrutv Kal OVK p. 178, TJ}V p,ev &gt;ydp rrjv et? ovra Kal ((frOopdv yevecri,v)...d7re yv(i)o-av dvinraptcTOV ovcrav. M. Aurel. iv. 4.

moveat, KivrjTt/ctjv rrjs vXys, frag. 45.

-non naturani : in apparent to frag. 46, but shall : we probably explain the Trvevpa is not merely it is also more it is (/wo-&lt;, i}rv%ij, nay ^f%&gt;; \6yov e^ovaa, i.e. i/oi)?.

animal, frag. 62. deum: observe that this is attributed to the school in general and not to Zeno in particular, cf. frag. 66.

a 51. Stob. Eel. i. 11. 5 , p. 132, 26. Zijvavor ova-lav

Be elvat rrjv TU&gt;V OVTWV Trdvrwv Trpwrrjv v\^v, ravrrfv 8e Tracrav dtSiov Kal ovre 7rXe/&lt;u ^^vo^kvr]v ovre eXarro) ra Se OVK del ravra d\\d Bcai- /J&gt;epr) Tavrir}^ Sia/j,eveiv Kal Bid Be peladai crvy^elcrdai. Tavrr)&lt;; BiaOetv rov rov iravTos \oyov, bv evioi el^ap^evriv tcaXovcriv, olovTrep ev ry TO yovy aireppa. Epiphan. Haeres. I. 5, Diels, p. 558, (fracrKet ovv Kal ovros (Ttrjvwv) TTJV v\rjv (rvyxpovov Ka\wv TO) dew tcra rals aXXat? aipecrecnv, elp,apfLevriv re elvai Kal yeveaiv e^ ?;? ra iravra BioiKetrai Kal Travel. Diog. L. VII. 150, over lav Be TUIV OVTCOV curdvTwv &lt;f&gt;aai TT)J/

v\r)v (a^...ZTji&gt;a)v...Ka\eirai Be St^aJ? ovcria re Kal 72 100 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ovv ratv TrdvTwv KOL rwv eVt rj fiev v\rj 77 re 77 pepovs. Be r&v TWV o\o)v ovre TrXeiwv ovre e\drr(av yiverai &gt;] teal e\drro)v. Tertull. de Praes. eVi fjLepovs Kal rrXeivv cum deo Zenonis Cup. c. 7, et ubi materia exaequatur disciplina est. Cf. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 294, Stoici deum scilicet hoc esse quod silva sit vel etiam qualitatem inseparabilem velut semen deum silvae, eundemque per silvam meare, per membra genitalia. OVTC irXcCw. The aTroto? v\r) is, as we have seen, also dtBios it is in wpia-fjievij and rcerrepaa-^evrj: being Its however capable of increase or diminution. parts (i.e. matter as seen in the lotus TTOLOV or individually deter destruction and See mined thing) are subject to change. n. 2. the further authorities cited by Zeller, Stoics, p. 101, both these Sicuptwrflcu Kal o-vYX^* 1 - Strictly speaking the of inter terms are to be distinguished from theory characteristic of Stoicism mingling which was (/epa&lt;rt? is the fit o\a)v, and see infra). Thus Siaipea-is sepa ration of substances which have been combined by a of wheat or beans, while Trapd6e&lt;m, e.g. heap barley, fusion of two distinct substances avyxvo-is is the chemical of the which lose their essential properties in consequence Stob. Eel. I. 17. 4s 154, 10155, process (Chrysipp. ap. p. Stoic or is from the 14). The /cpao-t? ^ui&lt;? distinguished and from former by its implication of entire permeation, the latter owing to the retention of their properties by the ingredients.

19. 8e oimw&lt;? 52. Stob. Eel. I. 17. 3, p. 152, Zr,vwva roiavrrjv 8e Secret elvat ev diro&lt;t&gt;aive&lt;r6ai SiapprjSyV e /t ouaia?, orav etc o&a) TTJV rov 6\ov SiaKovfiTjanv rfjf ri et? BC yevrjTat, TO pkv T/JOTTT) vSup ae/JO? v^ia- e/c TOV XotTroO Se TO xal yfJ v o-vvia-raffOai [ical] THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 101

ex 8e fj,ev Siapeveiv vSwp, rov drpi^ofievov depa ylvetrdai, oe rov \eTrrvvofievov depos rrvp e^aTrreaOat, rrjv 8e fjLi^iv

&lt; Kal &gt; Kpdaiv yiveadai rrj et? a\\rj\a rduv /j,erafto\f] crw/uLaros o\ov 8t o\ov TII^O? erepov Diog. L. VII. 135, 136, ev re elvcti deov teal vovv /cat Kal re i/jLapfj,evr]v Ata TroXXat? erepat? Qvopaaiais Trpoa- ovofAa^ecrdai,. KCLT ap^ri? ftev ovv Kaff avrov ovra rpeweiv Trcicrav ovcriav Si et? Kal rrjv depo? vSwp uxnrep ev rfj TO yovfj cr7rep/j,a Trepte-^erai ovrw Kal TOVTOV aTrepnaTiicov ovra rov roiovSe v7ro\L7r(rOai ev rca \6yov Koap,ov, vypu&gt;

avru&gt; Troiovvra evepyov rr]v v\rji&gt; TTOO? rrjv rwv e^-r;? yevecriv etra diroyevvdv irputrov rd tkcraapa crroiyela

8e avrwv ra&gt; TTvp, vSwp, depa, &lt;yrjv. \e&lt;yi irepl Zr^vwv ev rov o\ov. L. VII. Trepl Diog. 142, jivecrOai Se rov Koa/j,ov brav K ovcria 8t Trvpos rj rpaTrfj aepo? et? vyporr/ra, elra TO Tra^f/iepe? avrov avcrrdv d-n-ore\ecr6f) yrj TO 8e XCTTTO- Kal rovr errl 7r\eov epa)0rj, ~\.7rrvv0ev -rrvp TTO- elra Kara GK rovrwv re Kal IU%LV (f&gt;vrd %u&gt;a Kal rd d\\a yev-rj. Srj ovv Kal Trepl T?;? yeveaettx; rrjs &lt;f&gt;6opds rov Koapov fyyo-l TATJVWV /lev ev ra&gt; Trepl o\ov, K.T.\. Probus ad Verg. p. 10, 33 K. ex his (quatuor elementis) omnia esse postea effigiata Stoici tradunt Zenon Citieus et Chrysippus Solaeus et Cleanthes Assius.

v : these -n-tpioSu) words seem to refer to the periodic renewal of the world after each eWt/ptwcri? and to a constantly recurring cycle in the course of the universe, rather than to the mutual interchange of the four elements which goes on during the actual existence of the world, cf. Marc. Aurel. X. 7, ware Kal ravra et ? TO&gt; dva\ri&lt;J&gt;0rivat TOL&gt; o\ov \oyov, e ire Kara TreploSov eKTrvpovf^evov eire K.r.\. Xumenius ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 18. 1, dpecrKet 8e rots Trpeaftvrarots rwv d-Tro rf)$ aipea-eays ravrris e^vypovcrdai, Trdvra Kara Trepi68ov$ rtvd? rds fieylara^ et? Trvp aWe- ptooe? dva\vop,evwv Trdvrwv, 102 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

oTav K irvpos rpoir^ K.r.X. The of VOO)p is first described and then the from the -rrvp re^viKov from TO subsequent generation of the four elements in the first extract vypov. This appears more clearly from Diogenes than in the actual words of Zeno as is here reported by Stobaeus. Zeno following very closely in the footsteps of Heraclitus (71-17309 rpoTral irpwTov TO 8e ddXacraa 0d\.do-&lt;rrjs 8e TO fiev rjfiKrv yfj fypurv R. P. but differs from him in Trprjo-Trjp, and 30) adopting the theory of the four elements, and to this fact is due the introduction of the words oY aepo?. Cf. also the account of Anaximenes, ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 6 a, Ai&gt;at- TOV jj,evrj&lt;t dpaiovp,evov pev depa Trvp yiyvecrdai (prjat, eiTa TTV/cvovfMevov 8e dvfjiov, elra vecfros, en fjid\\ov vowp, rd Be d\\a etc TOVTWV. The dvw elra yrjv, elra \i6ovs in the in cf. fcdm 68o&lt;? appears clearly passage Stobaeus, are certain difficulties in this Cleanth. frag. 21. There discussed account of the SiaKoa-prja-is, which, although not in the authorities, it is right to state even if no satis be Is the factory solution of them can given. (1) egv- from and anterior to the formation 7ptuo-i9 entirely distinct of the four elements 1 If Diog. s account is based upon in the Zeno, this question must be answered affirmative, but in Stobaeus it appears rather as an ordinary stage in the Kara 6809. That an entire resolution of the irvp as TO TOV TtyyiKov into vypov (except regards ecr-^arov the Stoa is also clear from Cornut. Trvpos) was taught by

eo-Tt 8e Xao&lt;? TO Sta/coo-- c. 17, p. 85, Osann. pev irpo rf)&lt;; a-n-o OVTWS wvo- ^4T/o-eo)9 yevopevov vypov, rrj&lt;; ^uo-eo&gt;9 to TO o &lt;TTIV olovel Kao&lt;j.,.^v Be TTOTC, pao-fjievov, f) irvp, TO Trdv Kal ird\LV ev Tral, 7rvp &lt;yevij(TfTai TrepioSy

8" avrov o-(3ecrdevTO&lt;; ei&lt;t depa pera/SoXr) ddpoa yiverai o Toy rrjt 619 vBtop" Sri Xa/x/Saj^et [lev v^Kna^vov pepovs TOV 8e Kara ov&lt;ria&lt;; Kara TTVKVWO-IV \e7TTvvofjLevov dpaiwo-iv. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 103

(2) Is the egvypwo-is merely a step in the creative process or is it to be regarded, as it apparently was by Clean thes, as the antithesis of the eKTrupwacs ? Perhaps it is safest to regard Zeno as an exponent of the simple 6809 avw Kara) and to treat the complications in connection with the ToVo9 theory of Cleanthes (frag. 24).

Tpoirrj, codd. corr. Heeren. rpaTrrj, Mem. (del. yevrjrai) coll. D. L. viz. 142.

\irrvvo^vov, K.T.\. is the corr. of Wachsm. for the MSS. ex rivos 8e rov depot, coll. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 3. the [iiiv. The mixture of dry substances )( icpaa-tv fusion of moist. For a full discussion of the peculiar

Stoic doctrine, see Zeller, Stoics, p. 136 foil. It carries with it practically a negation of the physical truth that two bodies cannot occupy the same space. Chrysippus, who devoted much attention both to the positive expo sition and controversial defence of this doctrine, illustrated it by several practical examples, one of which, from its

deserves consideration : teal et? obscurity, yap 7re\a&lt;yo&lt;&gt; 00*09 eVt TTOCTOV 0X1709 /3X,?7$et9 avTiTrapeKTaOrjaerai &lt;rv^- L. VII. i.e. the of the &lt;^6apr)a-Tai (Diog. 151), disappearance wine particles can only be explained on the hypothesis of their equable distribution. Stein observes (Psych, nn. 29,35) that the Ionian aXXoicoo-t9 is not found in the Stoa before Aurelius, but this is inaccurate. Thus Posidonius, ap. Stob. Eel. I. 25, p. 178, 7, after explaining that there are four kinds of fiera/BoXr), (1) Kara Siaipecnv, (2) /car

d\\oiu&gt;criv, (8) Kara crvy^vaiv, (4) e o\u&gt;v or ar

dvciXvariv, proceeds : rovrwv 8e rt)v /car d\\oia)&lt;riv Tr

ovcrlav ri TTJV yivea dai rd&lt;; 8 XXav rpetf Trepl roi/9

\eyo/Mevov&lt;; rou9 eVt rfjs ova-las

53. Galen, et9 TO iTnroKpdrov vTTo^vrip,a Trepl

I. (XVI. 32 K.) Znffvwv re o KiTteo&lt;? [09] Ta9 TroiorTjTaf OVT&lt;O 104 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. teal rcif overlap Si o\ov tcepdvvwrdai evofii^ev, id. de nat. St facult. I. 2, 6i & uxnrep rds Troior^ra? KOI ra&lt;? ovaias o\wv KepdvvvcrOai, ^pi} vofii^eiv, &lt;w? ixrrepov (iTrefajvaro Zr/vu)v o Ktrteo?. (Galen says that this theory was ulti took mately due to , from whom Aristotle it.) in The best commentary on this frag, is to be found Sext. Pyrrh. in. 57 62, which contains a statement and refutation of the doctrine here referred to. The following short summary will make the meaning clear : Things to the influence of are them which are subject Kpd&lt;ns selves a combination of ova-la and Troiorrjre^ : when mixture takes place, we must either say that the oixriat or that are mixed or that the -rroi6rijT&lt;; are mixed, both or neither are mixed. The last alternative is obviously absurd, and the same may be shown to be the case with either of the two first, XetTrerat \eyeiv on teal at Troiorrjre^ rwv Kipvapevwv teal at ovcriat, ^wpovcri ot a\\rj\(0v /cat But this is fAtyvvfAevat rrjv icpdaiv diroTe\.ov&lt;riv ( 59). still more absurd. Mix one spoonful of hemlock juice with ten of water : if both entirely permeate each other, they must occupy the same space and be equal to each other. The result of the mixture ought therefore to give us either 20 spoonfuls or 2. The whole discussion is one which strikes a modern reader as particularly barren to the and pedantic, but it should never be forgotten that less ovo-ta. " Aris Stoics 7rot6rr)&lt;j was material no than totle s 4809 becomes a current of air or gas (Tri/eu/xa), the essential reason of the thing is itself material, standing to to a solid it in the relation of a gaseous body." (Encycl. Brit. Art. Stoics.)

54. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 1% p. 171, 2. Z^wi/t /cat K\edv0ei ovcriav olov elf teal XpucriTTTTft) dpefftcei rrjv ftera/SaXXety eV 07rep/j.a TO Trvp, teal traXiv rovrov roiavrrfv THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 105

\eia-0ai o la TTJV SiaKoa-^rja-tv Trporepov TJV. Euseb. P. E. XV. 18. o, apecrKei yap TCH&lt;? ST&H/COI? (f)i\.ocr6(f)otf rr/v oXrjv ovcriav p.eraj3a\\eiv elf trvp olov elf crTrepfia teal ird\iv e /c TOVTOV avroreXetcr&u avrrjv TI}V BtaKoa-^crtv o la TO irpo- teal TOVTO TO Tepov ifv S6y/j,a rcav CITTO TIJS alpeaewf ol r TrpuiToi Kal TrpecrfivTaTot TrpocnJKavTO Lr]vwv re KOI Kal K\dv0i)&lt;i Xpuo-iTrTro?. Amob. ad Nat. II. 9, qui ignem minatur mundo et venerit cum tempus arsurum, non Pauaetio, Chrysippo, Zenoni (credit) 1 The Stoic authorities for the doctrine of eKirvpwaif will be found collected in Zeller, p. 164 n. 2. On this point they were opposed to the Peripatetics who held the dffrdapvia of the Koafiof, and even some of the later Stoics, notably and Boethus, diverged from the teaching of their predecessors. It is doubtful whether Zeno derived

the from Heraclitus Introd. : eKTrvpaxris (see p. 21) it may however be observed that it was far more in accordance with his historical position to maintain the destructibility of the world, at an}- rate, so long as we concede any to his fire if fire is a mere materiality primal ; metaphor to irav-ra express pet, the case is of course very different. Cf. Marc. Aurel. in. 3. The Christian writers often allude to the etcTrvpwa-is, which serves at once as a and a contrast to their parallel own doctrine, e.g. Tatian, adv. Graec. c. 25, lu 2 C, TTO- p. eKirvpcoaiv (\eyet ri&lt;?) Kara ftaiveiv ^povovs eya) Se ela-dira%. Martyr, Apol. I. 20. 20, p. 66 D. TO add. Heeren irvp, elf whom Heinze, , p. Ill, but the alteration is follows, needless. For cnrepfj.a cf. M. Aurel. iv. .36.

55. Tatian, adv. Graec. c. 5, TOV Z-tjvwva Sid Trjt eK7rv- pwcrewf a7ro(f)atv6^evov dvicrTaadai, 7rd\tv TOI)? avTovf eVt rot? avTOtf, \eyca 8e "AvvTov Kal MeX^Toy eVt TOJ KUTTJ- 106 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

r&lt;o Kal Tra\iv yopelv Rovaipiv Be eVl ^evoKrovelv Hpa/cXea firl TO) d6\elv Trapairrjreov. Cf. Nemes. Nat. Horn. c. 38, evecrOcu yap irdXiv ^wfcpdrr) Kal \\\dra}va /cal e/caa-rov rwv dvdpwTrwv &lt;rvv Kal rd avrd 7reicre&lt;r6ai rot? auTOi? teal (/uXot? Kal TroXiVat? Kal rd avrd Kal Tot&lt;? avrols crvvrev^ecrdai fiera-^eipieicrdat Kal diroKaOicr- Kal Trdcrav TTO\LV Kal Kwprjv dypov O/AOICO&lt; rao-Oai. The exact repetition in some future cycle of the world s course of the events that have already happened was maintained also by the Pythagoreans, cf. Simpl. Phys. TTiffreixreie cw? Trd\w 178 a, el Be n&lt;f rot? llvOayopelow, TO wv rd avrd dpiOfJUp, Ka&lt;y(a fivdo\oyevcr(i) paftSiov ex eei Vfuv Kadrjfievois ovra), Kal rd d\\a Trdvra o/iotcy? Kal rov ypovov ev\oyov ecrrt, rov avrov elvai (quoted by were the Zeller, Pre-Socratics I. p. 474, n. 2). The Stoics more inclined to adopt such a view in consequence of their belief in the unswerving operation of the decrees of the which destiny. Somewhat analogous are consequences flowed from the Epicurean theory of an infinite number of : cf. Cic. Acad. II. 125, et ut nos nunc simus ad Baulos Puteolosque videamus, sic innumerabilis paribus in locis isdem esse nominibus, honoribus, rebus gestis, isdem de rebus ? ingeniis, formis, aetatibus disputantis 70. The subject is well treated by Ogereau, Essai, p. to the Stoic is irapai-rrr&v : Tatian s objection theory based on the ground that there is no progress towards will be more numerous than , the bad again to a small the just : Socrates and Heracles belong very minority.

cc. 510, 56. [Philo.] trepl d^Qapcrias KM/MOV, 23, 24, p. Bern. Diels. 11, foil. Mang. p. 264, 3 p. 486, Beo^pao-ro? Kal rov Karrj- /tei/roi (foal rovt yevea-iv &lt;f)0opdv Kocrpov yopovvras VTTO rerrdpav dTrartjOtjvai, ra&gt;v peyia-rtov, 77/5 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 107

eKficrrov TWV TOV o\ov &lt;iva&gt;/jta\ia&lt;t, Oakdrrr)^ dva^wp^creuis, 5 jjiepwv 8ia\vcre(i)S, \epcraiwv (frOopas Kara yevrj a&gt;a&gt;v. Kara-

Be TO OVT&lt;O&lt;J el &lt;TKevd^eiv /jLev rrpwrov //.?} yevecrews dp-^v ouBev dv e\a/3ev T) 717, ftepo? inravecrTOS en avrr/s ewpdro,

%8a/jLa\d S ?;Sr/ rd oprj Trdvr eyeyevrjro, KOI ol yetoXocfroi

Trdvres IcroTre&ot rf) TreStaSt TO&lt;TOVTWV ydp fcaO efcacrrov eviavrov e dlBlov etVo? rwv 10 o^pwv (frepo/jLevwv TJV 8irjp/jLevu&gt;v S 7T/309 vtyos rd /j,ev ^et/Ltappoi? aTrepp^^Bai, rd VTrovocnr]-

&lt;ravra Trdvra Se Sid K^a\(tcrOat, travroiv rj8rj \e\eidv6ai vvvl Be avve^w^ dvw^a\.iai KCU Tro/iTroXXwf opwv at

; aldepiov vtyos V7rep/3o\al fjirivv^ar eVrt TOV TTJV

; d lBiov elvat irdXai yap, co? efajv, ev djreipw ^povw rat? 15 Treparwv ejrl Trepara iraff dv

v8aro&lt;; icai e$&gt;vice yap rj fyvcns /j,d

Karapdrrov(ra rd fiev e^wdev rfj /3ia, rd Se

I TO) avve^el TWV ^rend^wv Ko\drrTov(ra KoC\.a[veiv vrrep- re KOI ; yd^eaOai rrjv &lt;7K\T]poyea)v ^dfo^ecrrdTrjv opvKTrjpwv 20

CVK e\a,TTOv. KOI ij | fjirjv ye OdXaacra, (j&gt;acriv, tjBrj

; /jLepeiwTai ^dpTvpes S at vr)crwv euBoKif^oorarai, ; Te Kai A 17X0? avrat ydp TO fiev rrdXaiov r eBeBv/cea-av S 9 Kara TJ;? da\drrr]&lt;s erriK\v^6fMevai, ^povw i vcTTepov e\a,TTOvfAevrjs rjpefia /car 6\iyov di la-^ovaai, &5? 25

I ai Trepl avrwv dvaypafalcrai, /j,r/vvovcrt,v icrToplai [rrjv 8e

I Kai 81 A?}Xoi&gt; A.va&lt;f&gt;r)V wvofiacrav d/j,&lt;f)OTepa)v ovofJLarwv I maTovfjbevoi TO \ey6fj,evov, erreiBrf ydp Brj\rj dvafyavelaa

eyeveTO d8r)\ovfj,evr) teal d(j)avr/s ovcra TO rrd\ai\ rrpbs Be

K.6\rrov&lt;s Kai rreXayiav ^eyd\ov^ /3a$et&lt;? 30 Kai rjTreipwcrdat yeyev?)&lt;70ai r?}? irapaxei- A ou Kai fjLevrjs ^u&gt;pa^ /Aoipav \vrrpdu crrretpo/j,ei&gt;ov&lt;; (frvTevo-

: /LteVou?, ol? crrifj,eT drTa r^? TraXaia? va7ro\e\ei&lt;j)8ai, 6a\arr(t)(T(i)s re Kai Kai ocra -^rrj(f)l8d&lt;j Koy^a&lt;^ o/jLOiorpowa elwdev Kai aiyia\ovs arro{3pdTre&lt;T0ai. [Bio HivSapos 35

Xat to p , OeoB/J,aTa, \i7rapo7r\OKd(j,ov 108 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

7rai8e&lt;T&lt;ri \arovs t/j-epoecrrarov Zpvos Hovrov av Ovyarep, %0ovo&lt;; eupeia? aKivrjrov repaf re ftporol 8 ev 40 AaXof Kt,K\ij&lt;TKOva iv, /ta/cape&lt;? O\vfj,7T(0 rrj\e- Kvaveas (fravrov -^6ovo&lt;f darpov. Ovyarepa ydp Hovrov rrjv A^Xoy eip^Ke ro \e%6ev alvir- el rouevos]. 87} peiovrai rj 6n\arra, peioidijcrerat, /J,ev rj 8 eviavrwv teal et? arrav &lt;yf), /ia/c/3at? TreptoSot? eicdrepov

&lt;8e&gt; KOL o crroi^elov ava\u&gt;6r)crerai,, SaTravwOjjcrerai

45 cTL /iTra? dr;p eic rov icar 6\iyov e\arrov^.evo&lt;^, (iTrotcpi- Orjcrerai 8e rcavr els ^iav ovcriav rr/v Se rov 7T/30&lt;? rrjv rpirov Ke(pa\aiov ov rcdvra Xoyw roi(u8e (frdeiperai rrdvrws eKelvo, ra /J.epij rov Be rcdvra rd &lt;f)0aprd ecrrt, KOCT/JLOV pepr) &lt;f)6aprd eari,

50 (f)6aprof dpa 6 ACOCT/ZO? ecrrlv. o 8 inrepeOe^eBa vvv em- cnceirreov. rrolov JV drro /u.epo&lt;? rfjs 7?;?, ravrrj^ dp^w^ieda,

ov ; \ida)i&gt; 01 [j,etov rj eXarrov, ^pova) ia\v6r)crerai

Kara eea&gt;9 Kparaioraroi dp ov /LtuScScri Kal ar/rrovrcu rrjv TO/ OVK dadeveiav [77 8 eo-rt rrvev^ariKo^ O?, Secr/io? Kal 55 dpprjicros, d\\d p,6vov &vcrSid\vros] dpvrrrop,evoi, KOVIV peovres el$ \eTrrrjv ro rrpwrov dva\vovrat ; [ei@ ri 8e ei vcrrepov 8a7ravr)0evres e%avd\vovrai\ ; [*rj Trpo? rb eadev a? dvk^JMV pnri^oiro vBiap, aKiwrjrov ov^ v&lt;$&gt; ^(ru^t Kal Svcray&ea-rarov veKpovrat ; fj,eraf3d\\ei yovv yiyverat ola f v a i GO r %rjv d(pr)prj/j,evov ^u&gt;ov. ye ^,rjv depos (frdopal

rravri ra&gt; vocreiv Kal Kal rtv 8f)\ai ydp &lt;f)6ii&gt;iv rporrov e-rrel ri dv drroOvrjaKeiv rrefyvKev. rt?, pr) a-ro^a^6fj.evo&lt;; ovofidrwv evrrperreias d\\d rd\r)dovs, CITTOI Xoipov eivat eVt 7r\r)v depos ddvarov ro oiicelov rrddos dva%eovro$

G5 Trdvrwv ocra ; ri fj,aKprj- &lt;f&gt;0opa ^v)^^ pepoiparai ^prj avriKa yopelv Trepl -rrvpos ; drpo^r/crav ydp crftevvvrat 01 e eavrov. Sib 6v, ff fyacriv rroirfrai, yeyovos a-Krjpnr- Kara opBovrat rrjv rfjs dva&lt;f&gt;6eicrrj&lt;; vXrjs vofir)v,

8" d&lt;f&gt;avierai. [ro THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 109

teal TOU9 Kara rr/v *Iv8iK)}v BpaKOVrds (fracri 7rda"%eiv. 70 avepTTOVTas yap CTTI ra fieyL(TTa TWV ^(awv eXecfravras

vu&gt;Ta Kal aTracrav 8 Trepl vrjBuv eiXelcrdai, &lt;f)\e/3a fjv av rv%r) oieXovTas (J,7TtVtv TOV ai uaTos, cr7ra)/j,evovs /3tai&) Trvevfiarc teal avvrovw p ovv Tii/o? e%ava\ou[jievovs e/celvovs dvTe%tv VTT afirj-^avLa^ 75 dvaaKipriavTas teal rfj Trpovo^aia rrjv TT\evpav rvTrrovras

&gt;9 TWV etr Ka6iofj,evov&lt;&gt; Bpatcovrcov, del Kevov^evov TOV

^WTLKOV TrrjBdv fMv fjL,rjtc6Ti ^vvaaOai, KpaSaivofievovs S .ecrrai/at, piKpov 8 ixrrepov teal rwv crKeXwv egacrOevrjcrdv- To)v KaraaetcrOevTas VTTO Xi0at/z,/a? dTro^ru^eLV Trecroi/ra? 80 Se roi)? atriou? TOV davcnov a-vvaTT6\\vvai rpoTrw rotwSe oi oi/ Tpcxprjv Spa /coi/re?, irepiedecrav &ecr/j,oi&gt;

K\veiv a7ra\\ayt}v rjSr) Tro^oufre?, UTTO Se

TOV /3apou? Tcof e\e$dvTwv 6\LJB6fjievoi Tne^ovvTaL teal

TroXi) /j,d\\ov 7Tiodv TV^r] (7Tepi(f)ov &lt;ov&gt; Kal \iOdo8es 85 TO Kal TrdvTa eSa&lt;^o? iKvcrTrw^evoi yap vrotouvre? et?

vTTo r?;? TOU TrtecravTos ySia? TreS^^eyre? eauroi)? eV Kal a^nj^avo^ aTropot? yv/jtvdo~ai&gt;Tes

&lt;Kal&gt; oi KaOd-rrep KaTa\evcr6evTes rj Tefyovs ovo^ ocrov dva- ai(f&gt;vi8iov eTrevexOevTes 7rpoKaTa\r]&lt;p0evTe&lt;;, 90

Bvvd^evoc rrviyfj TeXevTwa-iv.] el 8rj TWV jiepuiv e/cacrroi/ roO Kal 6 Kocrfjiov $&gt;6opdv VTTOfAevet, 8rj\ovoTt % JIVTWV OVK e&Tai. TOV 8e 770,7619 o&lt;r/i09 d&lt;f)dapTos TerapTov

Kal \OLTTOV a&gt;Se ei S 6 \6yov aKpifiwTeov (f&gt;a(Tiv. /cocr^o?

r/v, r/v av Kal TO. &&gt;a d lSia Kal rro\v ye /JbaXXov TO 95

dv6pw7ra)v yevos ocrw Kal TU&gt;V d\\wv dfieivov. d\\d

Kal o^riyovov (fravfjvat, rot9 /3ov\ofievois epevvdv Ta et/co9 yap fj,d\\ov 8 dvayKalov dvdpwTrois &)9 dv ov brt TO e ra9 Te^fa9 t,crr)\i,Ka&lt;? fj,ovov \oyiKy /

6ooov OLKelov a\\d Kal OTL fyjv dvev TOVTWV OVK eaTLV 100 eKacTTtov e roi)9 xpovovs a\oyr)aavTe&lt;i TWV

6eol&lt;i el fjivdwv ^. ^ ^ p,r] diotos dvOpwTros,

.d\\o TI %(*)ov, WCTT ovo* ai SeSeypevai TavTa 110 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO

dr wv TO flvat, rov teal vBcop Kal jp. eg ^tdaprov 8r/\6v ecTTiv It will be seen that the writer attributes to Theo- views as phrastus the statement and criticism of certain to the creation and destruction of the world, which were After opposed to the Peripatetic doctrine of its . the above extract this hostile view is refuted by arguments obviously derived, in part at least, from Peripatetic 1 the name of is not sources , although Theophrastus again introduced. The question arises, assuming the good of the extract, to whom do these criticised views belong ? 422 This point was first raised by Zeller in Hermes XL 429 and by an ingenious process of reasoning he concluded that Zeno is the philosopher who is here attacked. First, the four arguments, by which the proposition that the world is mortal is supported, belong to the Stoic school.

for ! They cannot belong to a pre-Aristotelian philosopher, the doctrine of the eternity of the world and of mankind, against which they are directed, had not been broached b I. 10. 279 of the before Aristotle (see de Caelo 12) ; post- Aristotelians they obviously alone suit the Stoics, who were alone in holding the periodical destruction of the world. The second argument, built on the retrocession of the sea, finds a parallel in the views of a world-flood attributed to the Stoa by Alexander Aphrod. Meteor. a 90 m.; and the dialectical form in which the third and fourth arguments are couched suggests the same origin. Again, the authority of Diog. L. VII. 141 is conclusive as to of the third argument, and the terminology et&lt;?, TOI/O?, to which be added TTvevpa, and irvev^ariK^ 8uz/a/Lu&lt;?, may and oiiceiov, is v\r)&lt;;, &lt;J&gt;v&lt;rei undoubtedly ovtria, ai&gt;a&lt;/&gt;#etcr77&lt;? Stoic. Next, it being proved that these arguments belong to the Stoic school, Zeno is the only Stoic whom Theo-

1 This point is proved in detail by Zeller, 1. c. p. 424, 5. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. Ill

phrastus could have criticised, for the latter died in 01. 128, that is between 288 and 284 B.C., at a time when Zeno s school had been founded for about 15 years. For the avoidance of a direct mention of Zeno, if such was the case in the really Theophrastean original, Zeller quotes the parallel cases in which Aristotle combats the views of Xenocrates and Speusippus without referring to them by name. an As additional circumstance pointing to Zeno s authorship, we may refer to the form in which the syllogism introducing the third argument is cast. This is undoubtedly one of those breves et acutulae conclusiones, so often mentioned Cicero as by characteristic of the style of the founder of Stoicism of and which examples (in addition to those in Cicero) have been preserved by Sextus Empiricus and Seneca: see the collection in Iritrod. p. 33. This is perhaps the right place to observe that a supposed frag, of Zeno, extracted by Wachsmuth (Cornm. I. p. 8) from Philo de Provid. I. 12, and to the same effect as the third argument here, can no longer be as regarded belonging to Zeno on the authority of that after the passage explanation of Diels, Doxogr. Gr. proleg p. 3 These views of Zeller have however been vigorously criticised by Diels (Doxogr. Gr. pp. 100108). His main contention is that the authority of the compiler of the pseudo-Philonian treatise is too weak to support so im a portant discovery as the alleged controversy between Theophrastus and Zeno, of which no trace has come down to us from other sources. He does not believe that this " nebulo " had ever read Theophrastus, and suggests that, finding the name of Theophrastus attached to the first two arguments in some work of , he left his readers to assume that the elder Peripatetic was really responsible for those passages in which Critolaus himself 112 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. attacks what is undoubtedly Stoic doctrine. The result is that Diels, though he prints cc. 23 27 in the body of his work, does not believe that they contain (even after from the allowing for later accretions) a genuine excerpt of the Eresian Now it is (frvcriKal Bo^ai philosopher. obvious that we are only concerned with the question of the fontes of the Philonian treatise and its general credi far as its solution enables us to authenticate bility, in so these fragments as belonging to Zeno. Thus, altogether the Zenonian apart from its appearance in this passage, authorship of the syllogism in 11. 4850 is extremely but also probable not only from internal indications, because of the evidence of Diogenes Laertius VII. 141, 142 words ovv (observe especially the Trepl Brj rrj&lt;j yevea-etos teal TOV Zijvow tv T&&gt; Trepl TJ;? &lt;f&gt;0opa&lt;; tcovpov facrl of the the o\ov). But, as to the general body fragment, trust the faith of the case is different : if we cannot good of the refutation writer, as giving us a genuine statement well by Theophrastus of his opponents doctrine, it may be that the two earlier arguments represent early Ionian, views Stoic and possibly Heraclitean, (with additions), the work of one of that in the later portions we have Zeno s successors as set out by a later Peripatetic. On the other hand, if Theophrastus is responsible for the to exposition of all four arguments, they certainly belong school, and that teacher, as a single teacher or a single has been shown above, must be Zeno. It is therefore of Zeller s necessary for us to consider the tenor rejoinder in Hermes xv. 137 146, which, briefly stated, resolves itself into a theory as to the origin of the pseudo-Philonian with treatise. He fully admits the many all be which the text is strewn, but argues that they can of the eliminated without interfering with the nexus more, that the writing, though arguments ; nay original THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 113

not of was at least a great value, clear and trustworthy of the views exposition of the Peripatetic school, to which the writer but that belonged, the sequence of its thought has been distorted and its whole character changed by the blundering additions of a later hand. We are able to in this treatise recognise the work of two distinct authors, the first an probably Alexandrian philosopher of the latter half of the first before century Christ, and a contemporary of and Boethus, and the second an Alexandrian Jew of the first or second century of the Christian era. The references of the original writer to Greek philosophy are found to be correct in all cases where his statements can be scrutinised by the light of other evidence : why then should we mistrust his citation of Theophrastus ? To test this theory in detail would require a examination of thorough the treatise in question with reference to the suggested additions, an examination which would be out of place here. But we can gauge the character of the proposed explanation by the three passages which Zeller expels from our extract, and which may be fairly said to be of the typical accretions in the general body of the work. All three are certainly futile and but that which is purposeless, especially remarkable is the manner in which the course of the argument is improved by their removal. In particular, the long digression about the and the Indian ^serpents elephants prevents the con clusion founded on the destructibility of the several elements from following in natural sequence the last of the which this arguments by destructibility is proved of each element in detail. The latest treatment of this ^ is to question be found in von Arnim s Quellen Studien zu Philo von Alexandria (Berlin 1888) p. 41 foil. Hi- believes that the of compilator the treatise only had later Peripatetic writings especially those of Critolaus before. H. p. 8 THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO.

of our was derived him, and that the main portion passage from one of them. All that belongs really to Theophrastus of the four is the statement of the headings arguments refer and these if taken alone, might (11. i_5) headings, in agreement with to pre-Aristotelians. Yet, holding that the which Zeller and against Diels arguments by are Stoic, he the headings are supported undeniably the Theo- concludes that a younger Peripatetic adopted a statement phrastean scheme, originally doxographical his doctrines, as a for of pre-Aristotelian groundwork the who on their side had a- polemic against Stoics, from Heraclitus dopted these four arguments, perhaps he on inadequate and Empedocles. Finally suggests, very that of Tarsus was the particular grounds (p. 47), Antipater If this is Stoic whose views are summarised. theory coincidence that correct, it is certainly an extraordinary have selected from the older philo Theophrastus should which to prove the sophy four particular statements, go and that the Stoics should destructibility of the world, the same have unconsciously taken up identically ground own Zeller s still in support of their theory. opinion see also Stein, n. 86, appears to me more reasonable: Psych, used above from the who has anticipated the argument 35. syllogism in 11. 33 ra 8 cf. c. 17. 85 Osann, opr) 8. rd SRTI Cornut. p. rfc 7^9. Schol. Hes. Theog. (yeryove) Kara e%o&lt;rrpaKivnov ra ro rijs avvi&&lt;T&lt;as e\a/3e p. 238, opt] -rrepl avwp,a\ov /cat teara avrfjs- ras eo%a&lt;? e^oarpaKia-^ov indicates that the would *yryfrr|To)(e76i;eTo process the time i.e. have been already complete at specified long the case of an action the dis ago. In denoting with uv is less tinction between plup. and aor. apparent, cf. Dem. Timocr. 746 146, though always present: e.g. p. were to the Ath. constitution if imprisonment contrary THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. H,5 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

rd VTTO ee&&gt;&lt;? IX. 81, rwv i]vw^vwv aw^drwv pev tyi\f)&lt;&gt;

208). of Clean- : the favourite doctrine 54. imvjiaTiKis r6vos to Zeno, we have an thes : if this passage belongs for the tion here that the master prepared the way pupil, words however in case cf. Cleanth. frag. 24. The may any have be a later addition, and under the circumstances they been bracketed.

" " in the Heraclitean sense ; 56. peovrts passing away 87 has el TO &lt;rw/wi...(Phaed. D). yet even Plato yap peoc 256. \irr^v KOVIV, cf. Soph. Ant. Rhein. Mus. W avo\. Om. Med. MS. cf. Biicheler 32. 442. is in connection 58. dW|u*v : the illustration suggestive cf. 106 with the doctrine of Trvevpa. For pnrL^otro frag. vir eiceivov. KivovfJ-evov KOI dvapiTri&nevov attributed to animals in 60. iHt^v appears to be not to man, see on frag. 43. general and exclusively 305 ical ei 63. c*rptas. Cf. Plat. Euthyd. E, ydp X d\r)0eiav. It is- OVTOK: &5 Kpirwv evTrpe-rretav pa\\ov % there is a reference to some contemporary possible that after the manner school here, which had explained Xoi/xo? IX. 2. of . For the definition cf. M. Aurel. 6991 ejected by Zeller, 1. c. 85. 5v add. Diels. 89. Kal add. Bernays. to but ellip 99. *is dv not merely equivalent wo-Trep be &5? *6? iiv el tV?- tical. The full phrase would rjv

ei &lt;roi Xen. Mem. H. 6. 38, 7} ireCaaipt KOIV$ \iKS r,&lt;rav. eo? av Kal 7ro\iTtK$ rrjv TTO\IV -^evBofievo^ a-rpaTrjyLKw see Kuhner. In this way is to eavrriv eTrirptyai, where be explained Thuc. I. 33. 1. explica- 102. "Deesse quibus evpypdruv tempora Usener. verant vidit Mangey," THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 117

57. Philargyrius ad Verg. Gcorg. n. 336, Zenon ex hoc mundo quamvis aliqua intereant tamen ipsum perpetuo manerc quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur materiae : ut dixit cresccrc quidem, sed ad interitura non pervenire manentibus elementis a quibus revalescat.

If taken literally, the doctrine here referred to would be inconsistent with the destructibility of the #007x09, which, as we have seen, was held by Zeno : again, ele menta can hardly be a translation of crroi^ela, which undoubtedly perished. We must suppose therefore that Zeno is speaking not of the visible world, but of the

and that elementa = - to universe, PX" According Diog. senses: L. vil. 137 tfooy/,09 is used by the Stoics in three the first of these is avrov rov deov rov etc r^? drraari^ TTOLOV ecrri teal ova-ias t8w9 09 S?} dtfrOapros dyevvr]TO&lt;&gt;,a,i\d this is the sense which mundus must bear here. If this explanation be thought impossible, we can only suppose that there is a confusion with Zeno of Tarsus who is said to have withheld assent to the doctrine of the etcTrvpaxTis,

Zeller, p. 168 n. 1. Stein, Psych, p. G4 and n. 92, thinks that Zeno held that at the eKrrvpwcn^ the various festations of God world-soul, ^0709 o-rreppan/cos etc. lose themselves in the divine unity, but that the inde terminate matter (a7roto9 v\r)} remains, cf. ib. p. 34, n. 42.

58. Diog. Laert. Vil. 143, on re et9 e&lt;rriv (6 b rco I. ZTJVWV (fir/a-lv ev Trepl TOV o\ov. Stob. Eel. 22. o p. 199, 10, 7ii]vwv eva elvai rov KOO-^OV. This was one of the points which distinguished the Stoics from the Epicureans, who held that there are an infinite number of worlds. See further Zeller, p. 183 and the notes : the characteristic and important view of crvp,Tra6eia fJi&pwv or avvrovia is one of the developments introduced by Cleanthes. 118 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

59. Sext. Math. IX. 101, Y^vwv Be 6 KtTiey?, airo TIV

Trpoiepevov afrepp-a \oyitcov Kal avro \OJIKOV ecrriv o ecrnv Se /cocr/no? rrpoterai cnrepp,a \OJLKOV- \oyiKov dp

6 a&gt; Kal rovrov Cic. /edoyu&gt;9. crvveiadyerai 77 V7rapf;i&lt;&gt;. N. D. II. 22, nihil quod animi quodque rationis est expers, id generare ex se potest animantem compotem- que rationis. Mundus autem generat animantes compo- tesque rationis. Animans est igitur mundus composque rationis. We need not infer from this passage that Zeno ex pressed himself to be adopting Socrates argument, for in the preceding paragraphs in Sext. 1. c. 92 f. the passage referred to (Xen. Mem. I. 4 2 5. 8) is set out and discussed. The parallel passage is 8 Kal ravra ei Stw? on T&J OU K.T.\. 7779 re p,iKpov /j,epos eV cnw/^art 7roXX^9 CTT/? e^et9 oofceis ...vovv Be /j,6vov (ipa ov8afiov ovra ere evTv^aJs TTW? (rvvapTrdaai, KOL rd8e rd vTrepfAeyedr] Kal 7T\7;0o? aTreipa cf. Sext, Bi d(f)poa-vvr)v rivd, a5? oiei, evrdicTW e^eiv , Math. ix. 77, M. Aurel. iv. 4 and see Stein, Psych, n. 53. TOVTOV. Bekker with some plausibility suggests rov 6eov. The Stoics argued from the existence of God that the world must be reasonable and vice versa. For the relation of God to the world see infra, frag. 66.

60. Cic. N. D. n. 22, Idemque (Zeno) hoc modo: " Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens.

Mundi autem partes sentierites sunt : non igitur caret sensu mundus."

Cf. Sext. Math. IX. 85, a\\a Kal 77 ra? \oyiKa&lt;; irepie-

irdvrws eVrl ov oloi&gt; re TO o\ov ^ovaa (f)v&lt;reis \oyiKi?" ydp ecrrt TOV TOV uepovs yelpov elvaf d\\ el down] (frvcris rj re ecrrai Kal cnrovoaia Kat KotTfJiov BioiKovo-a voepd dOdvaros. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 119

61. Sext. Math. IX. 104, Kal irdXiv o Zrjvcav

" ^ TOV e&lt;TTW ovoev oe t ei ] T ^-oyt-Kov /jbrj \oyiKov /cpelrrov

ye Koa/Jiov /cpetrrov ecrTtV \oyiKov dpa o Kocrfjios. Kai TO (acravTfas eVt TOV voepov Kal e^-^rv-^ia^ yLtere^ot TO?. yap Kal TO TOV voepov TOV fir] voepov efAifrvjfpv /U,T) e^^v^ov

KpeiTTov e&lt;TTiv ovSev oe ye KOCT/J,OV KpeiTTOv voepos apa teal ea-Tiv o Cic. N. D. II. eyu-T/ru^o? Arocr/io?." 21, quod ratione utitur id inelius est quam id quod ratione non utitvir. Nihil autem mundo melius: ratione igitur niun- dus utitur. Cf. ib. in. 22, 23. Alexinus the Megarian attacked Zeno s position with the remark that in the same way the world might be proved to be poetical and possessed of grammatical know it is in ledge. The Stoics retorted that not true that the is better TO or TO abstract TO TTOLTITLKOV than yu.?} TTOI^TLKOV

than TO : otherwise Archi- ypan/jLaTiKov /u,r) ypa/j,/j,aTi/c6v lochus would be better than Socrates, Aristarchus than

Plato (Sext, 1. c. 108110). For the feet cf. Diog. vn. e 139, ovTW orj Kal TOV o\ov KOCT^OV yov ovTa Kal /u/^ru^oz/

Kal \oytKov K.T.\. Stein adds Philo, de incorr. m. p. 50G

M, o KOCTfjiOf Kal (^ucri? \oytKTJ, ov JJLOVOV efju^vy^os (av, aX\,d Kal 8e Kal Siebeck refers to voepos 7T/30? &lt;f)povin,o&lt;s. b Arist. de Gen. An. n. 1. 731 25, TO epvv TOV

62. Sext. Math. IX. 107, 8vvd/j,et 8e TOV avTov TU&gt; TO TTOLV 7ji]vwvi \oyov e^eOeTO (scil. Plato) Kal yap OUTO?

Ka\\i(TTOv eivai (frrjcriv KaTa (frvaiv aireipyaafjievov epyov

Kal KaTa TOV ei/coVa \6yov, ^utov efji-^rv^ov voepov Te Kal \oyiKov. called Hirzel s theory, II. p. 217, 218, that Zcno the world ep.^rv^ov and \oyiKov only but not ^wov is con troverted by Stein, Psych, n. 82 from this passage. The passage in Plato, part of which is quoted by Sextus, is 120 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Timaeus, p. 29 foil.; and see esp. 30 A, B which illustrates

this and the last frag., cf. M. Aurel. iv. 40.

63. Cic. N. D. II. 22, Idemque similitudine, ut saepe

solet, rationem conclusit hoc modo : si ex oliva modulate

canentes tibiae nascerentur, num dubitares qtiin inesset in oliva tibicinii quaedam scientia ? quid ? si platani ndiculas ferrent nuraerose sonantes, idem scilicet censeres in platanis inesse musicam. Cur igitur mundus non animans sapiensque judicetur, quum ex se procreet animantes atque sapientes ?

This recalls the anecdote about Amoebeus : apoph. 19.

64. Stob. Eel. i. 23. 1, p. 200, 21, Z^vwv Trvpivov flvat rov ovpavov. Stobaeus couples Zeno with , Heraclitus

and Strato. For the Stoic authorities see Zeller, p. 201.

65. Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. 5. p. 129 e, Ktrtei)? ouro)? avrov wpicraro ovpavos eanv aidepos TO

e ov teal ev o&gt; ecrrt Trdvra O"^arov e/t&lt;/&gt;aixw? Trepie^ei yap Trdvra TT\TJV avrov ovSev yap eavro Trepie^et aXX,

repov e&lt;rri TrepieicriKov. aietpos TO ?arxaTov: cf. Diog. L. vii. 138 quoted below.

" The genitive is partitive : the extreme part of the aether." This becomes clear when we remember that

Zeno is closely following Aristotle here, cf. Phys. iv. 5 KCU ev rut Sid rovro T; fj,ev yrj rw vSari, rovro & ev depi, ouro?

ev TO) alBept, 6 8 aldrjp ev rct&gt; ovpavw, 6 8* ovpavos ovtceri ev d\\(f). Just before he had said : ev ra&gt; ovpavw o TO jrdvra yap ovpavos rrdv I&lt;TU&gt;S. wcpUxtu A direct parallel to this may be found in the teaching of the Pythagoreans (Zeller, pre-Socratics, I. p. 465), but there is possibly also a reminiscence of Plato, Timaeus 31 A, where ovpavos is spoken of as TO THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 121

oTToaa : vor^rd %wa cf. also the Trepie^ov typevfjpes of Heraclitus (Scxt. Math. vn. 127 foil.). M. Aurcl. vin. 54.

66. L. VII. Diog. 148, ovaiav 8e deov Zijvcov (770- 1 TOV o\ov KOO~/J,OV Kal rov ovpavov.

Cf. Stob. Eel. i. 1. 1. 29, p. 38, The Stoics held 6&gt;eot)?. . . TOV Kal Kocr/jiov TGI)? daTepa&lt;? Kal Tr)v yrjv. In so far as God is manifested in the world, the world is God. Many more references are given in Zeller, p. 157. The words Kal TOV ovpavov are added because in it the material essence of exists in its purest form. Diog. L. VII. 8e e&Tiv e ev 138, ovpavbs 1} cr^ar?; Trepufiepeia, rj rrav I SpvTai TO delov. Hence Chrysippus and Posidonius spoke of the as TO ovpavov yye^oviKov TOV KOO^OD (ib. 139). if these Certainly, words are pressed, pantheism, involving the identification of God and matter, is distinctly at tributed to Zeno. Wellmann, p. 469, suggests that Zeno may really only have said that the world is formed out of the divine essence (6 KOCT/JLOS ovaia 6eov) and that Diog. a confusion of through subject and interpreted this as a definition of the essence of God. Another possibility is that Kooyio? is used in the same sense as in frag. 71. See also Stein, Psychologic n. 88.

67. Eel. i. Stob. 19. 4, p. 166, 4, Z^coz/o?. TWV 8 ev

TrdvTcov TU&gt;V Kocr/Aw KCLT ISiav e^tv crvve&lt;TTU)Ta&gt;v ra els TO TOV o\ov Ttjv tj&gt;opdv %eiv pecrov, 0^0/61)9 8e Kal avTov TOV Koa-fjiov Siojrep opdws \eyecr0ai, jrdvTa TO, f^eptj TOV eVt TO TOV KOCTfJiOV ^JukdOV KOCT/AOV TT)V (f)0pdv %eiV, 5 fj.aXi(TTa 8e TCI (Bdpos e%ovTa. TavTcv S CLITIOV elvat, Kal TOV ev r^9 KoafAOV [Aovrjs dTreipw Kevw, Kal T?;? yrjs jrapa- ev TW KOCT^W Trepl TO TOVTOV KevTpov Ka9i8pv- ov 8e iVo/cparftj?. Trayrty? aw^a ftdpos e-^eiv, dX\" elvat, depa Kal irvp Telveadai 8e Kal raura TTW? 10 122 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

eVt TO rov fj,ecrov, rrjv Be TJ/&lt;? 0X7/9 a^aipas Koafiov avrov TroietcrBai iv &lt;f)v&lt;rei (Tvcrrao TT/DO? rrjv 7repi&lt;f&gt;epeiav Bid TO yap dvaxfroira ravr elvai fiijBevos ^ere^eiv

Be TOUTOt&lt;? o08 avrov rov 7rapa7r\r)o-ia)&lt;i $a&lt;n Sid TO airrou ava-racriv etc T6 15 /3apo&lt;? eyeiv TT)I&gt; oXr/v

elvai teal etc r&lt;ov rrjv /9apo? eyovrwv &lt;Troi%i(i)v aftapaiv. Be 8 oX?;!/ 7771^ /ta^ eatT^i/ pev fyeiv dpeo-xet, /3apo? ?rapa Be TO rrjv decnv 8td TO rr]V /jLea-rjv %ei,v ^atpav (Trpo? pevov elvai Tot? TotoiJTOt? cf(t)^acnv] eVt TOU rorrov rrjv &lt;f&gt;opdv 20 rovrov neveiv. 2. trvvfo-Tomov. This is the most general term, else etc. where opposed to &lt;rvvd7rre&lt;r0ai, a-vve^ea-Bai K.T.\. This is 4. iravra rd (x^pri centralising tendency rwv rd called by Diogenes (vil. 140) rr/v ovpaviwv ?rpo? In the Stoic doctrine eTriyeia o-vfnrvotav teal (rvvroviav. of the microcosm and the macrocosm there is one dis of the world is at crepancy, in that while the r/yefjiovitcov is in the its extreme periphery the ^ye^ovitcov of man finds in this an breast. Stein, Psych, p. 211, passage the earth attempt to remove this inconsistency by making and to the central point from which all motion originates which it returns.

9. oi ivTs Si K.T.X. Cf. Stob. Eel. i. 14. 1 f. p. 142, 9, 01 STOU/COI Bvo pev K rwv recradpwv (rroi-%eiwv Kovfya Be ical Trvp teal depa Bvo fiapea vBwp yrjv. KOV&lt;J&gt;OV ycip

Be TO ei&lt;? o vevet dirb rov iBiov /3a/&gt;i) irrrdpxei fyvcrei,, /u-ecrou, not as in peaov, i.e. light is opposed to heavy relatively, in our use of the words, but absolutely, implying motion an outward or upward direction. Cic. Tusc. I. 40, persuadent mathematici...eam naturam esse quattuor omnia gignen- inter se ac tium corporum, ut, quasi partita habeant divisa momenta, terrena et umida suopte nutu et suo et in mare pondere ad paris angulos in terram ferantur, una reliquae duae partes, una ignea, animalis,...rectis THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 123

lineis in caelestem locum subvolent, sive ipsa natura superiora adpetente, sive quod a gravioribus leviora natura repellantur. N. D. n. 116, 117. The Stoics were following

Aristotle (ap. Stob. Eel. I. 19. 1, p. 163, 9, rrjs 8e Kara

1 TOTTOV Kivrjo-ea) ? rrjv /J-ev CLTTO TOV /jiecrov ^ivecrdai, rrjv Se

e-Trl TO /jieaov, TJJV Se Trepl TO /jiecrov Trupo? fj,ev ovv KOI CLTTO TOV Kal eVl TO TOV depo&lt;? /jiecrov, 7779 uSaro? pecrov,

TrefjiTTTOv Trepl TO f^eaov.).

10. Ttivfa-Qou. 8^ : So Diels for MSS. ylveo-0ai, a correc tion more probable for palaeographical reasons and in itself more attractive than Meineke s Ktvelcrdac. Cf. Nemes. 2.

TO, TO eVw p. 29, TOVLKTJV elvai Klvrjcriv Trepl aw^iaTa et? Kal TO Plut. Sto. apa e%u&gt; tcivovpevriv. Chrysipp. ap. Rep. 44. 7. 1054 K, OVTW 8e TOV o\ov Teivofj,evov et? TOWTO Kal

KivovfMevov K.T.\. The explanation is as follows : the natural motion of the elements is restrained and modified

by the continual process of change (yiieTa/SoX??) by whose action the world is formed and exists. Fire and Air are perpetually being transformed into Water and Earth and thus, before their upward tendency has time to assert itself, they themselves possessed of /3apo? start again in the opposite direction. Thus each of the four

elements is apparently stationary and remains constant : in reality its component parts are in continual motion. Cf. Chrysippus ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 44. 6, a passage too long to quote. This explanation is supported by the statement which is attributed to the Stoics by Stobasus,

that at the e /cTrupcocrt? the world is resolved into

(Eel. I. 18. 4 b. p. 160, 11 and Euseb. P. E. xv. 40): cf. ib.

I. 21. 3 b, /j,iJTe av^ecrdaL 8e piJTe fieiovo-dai TOV Kocrpov

Tot? Se pepecnv oVe /j,ev TrapeKTeLvecrdai Trpo? Tr\eiova TOTTOV cTe Be o-vo-Te\\ea-dai. This is not necessarily inconsistent with Prof. Mayor s explanation (on N. D. II. 116) that "the all-pervading aether, while it has a naturally ex- 124 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

has also a pansive and interpenetrative force, strong cohesive force and thus holds all things together round the centre." See also M. Aurel. XL 20. of : for the Stoic doctrine of the 11. &lt;rtaCpas rotundity b TOV the world, cf. Stob. Eel. 1. 15. 6 ot STGH/COI a-(f)aipoei8rj

I. hence Koa-pov d-ire^vavTo, Diog. vii. 140, Cic. N. D. 24, rtimVoSe? Cic. Acad. II. 123. in itself earth and 17. iropd Si TTIV eto-iv: /3apo? e^et so tends to move TO but to the accident TT/JO&lt;? pecrov, owing its natural of its position in the centre of the /cdoyio? motion has no opportunity of becoming apparent. cf. L. 18. (wo^v. For the position of the earth Diog. vii. 137, 155, Cic. N. D. I. 103.

a TO 68. Stob. Eel. I. 15. 6 p. 146, 21, T^rjvwv efyavice

Trvp Kar evBetav tciveicrdat.

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 14. 1. f. p. 142, 12, TO pev Treptyeiov Kar ev6elav...KiveiTai. This is only true of Trvp for the aether or has a circular , Trvp re-^viKov motion in the same manner as the TrefiTrrov awfia of

Aristotle. So Ar. de Caelo, I. 2. 9, TO re jap Trvp eV evOeias avw

d teal ot 69. Stob. Eel. I. 18. l p. 156, 27, Ziivnv air 8 avrov 6^-09 fiev TOV tcacr/iov fjitj^ev elvai KCVOV, e!~(i) icai TO (iTreipov. Siatyepeiv Be icevov, TOTTOV, ^wpav xevov elvai eprjplav (TW/JMTOS, TOV Se TOTTOV TO VTTO Be TO etc e crw/AaTos, TTJV -%&lt;apav pepovs Cf. VII. e &e avTov Diog. 140, j;&lt;i)dev elvai TO icevov aTreipov OTrep acrw^iaTov elvat VTTO ov ev &e TO olbv T KaTe%e&lt;jdai a-wfuiTcov KaTe%6/j,evov Se T(O Koa-fAw fjujBev elvai KCVOV. Pint. plac. I. 18, ot STOU/OH ovSev elvai 8 avTov fires fiev TOV Koa^ov icevov, e%u&gt;6ev 1. Diels adds Theodoret IV. e aireipov. M. Aurel. X. 14, THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 125

rov Travros fj,T)Sev eivai Kevov, e/cro? oe avrov re teal (tTreipov. The Epicureans held that without the existence of void within the world motion was impossible

(Lucr. i. 329 foil., Reid on Acad. I. 27, n. 125). The Stoics were unaffected by this argument in consequence of their doctrine of Kpaais Si o\wv, see further on frag. 50, supra. Aristotle denied the existence of void altogether either within or without the universe.

Kevov, TOTTOV, \upoiv. The Stoics and the Epicureans were in virtual agreement in their definitions of these x. 3. a fuller terms : see Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, For

1 I. 4 exposition cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. 18. p. 161, 8,

to and (*) a who compares Kevov to an empty, TOTTO&lt;? a full, x P similar of Aristotle to a partially filled vessel, cf. the views quoted by R. and P. 327.

70. Themist. Phys. 40 Speng. II. 284, 10, (TO eivai avro TOV Ke-^wpia-f^evov Kal dOpoov Ka& Trepie^ov

TU&gt;V a ovpavov, &k Trporepov fiev a/ovro ap^aiwv rives, per r on Ar. be ravra oi rrepl /ir)vwva rov Kirtea. Philopon. Se xai rov Phys. IV. 6. p. 213 a 31, fyaal 701)9 rrepl Tiijvwva Ktrtea ovroo rov eivai Kevov n KaO (scil. e^u&gt; ovpavov avro) So^d^eiv. TWV are the who dpxai&lt;ov nvis probably Pythagoreans believed in an aireipov jrvev/jLa outside the universe, called Kevov by some of the authorities (Zeller, pre-So- cratics I. pp. 467, 8).

rov 71. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 5, p. 213, 15, Zijvwv rj\iov

Kal r?]v aeXr/vrjv /cat r&lt;av d\\(DV aarpwv eKaarov &lt;/&gt;77crt ovo eivai voepov Kal (frpovi/Jiov Trvpivov rrvpos re^vLKov. Kal et9 eavro yap yevrj 771*009, TO p,ev are^vov uerd{3a\\ov re Kal rrjv rpo^rjv, TO Be re^viKov, av^r/riKov rrjprjriKov, Kai olov ev Tot9 0fTOi9 eaTt Kal coot9, o Si] (pvcris ecrrt 126 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

f evdl rWV 7TVpO&lt;? TTJV (UTTpfOV 8 icai Bvo rov rj\iov rrjv a~e\^vrjv (fropds &lt;f&gt;epecr6ai, rrjv fj.ev

et&lt;&gt; 8 V7TO rov Kocr/j,ov d.Tr dvaro\rj&lt;; dvaro\i)v, rrjv evavriav e/c- etc %o)Biov fiTd/3aivovTd&lt;t. rd^ 8 Tovrciiv ra? ^i^veadai, 8ta&lt;/&gt;op&lt;u?, tfXiov pkv Trepl Be 8 &lt;rvv6Sov&lt;;, 0-6X77^779 trepl ra? Travcre\rivov&lt;; yi&lt;yvea-6ai /cat ^V ra? e/cXei /cai bi/&lt;? eXarroi;?. dp&lt;j&gt;oTep(i)v ^et? /u,ei

&gt;Stob. Eel. I. 2(5. 1, p. 219, 12, Zqvw TI]V cre\rjv t]v e&lt;f&gt;ria-ev Se dcnpov voepov tcai fypovijjiov Trvpivov Trvpbs re^viKOV. mjpivov: they are situated in the external periphery of aether, and are themselves composed of the same sub stance. The later Stoics, at any rate, held that the heavenly bodies are fed by exhalations of grosser matter, and hence their differentiation from their environment.

Cf. Cleanth. frags. 20 and 30.

8vo ^VTI : cf. Cleanth. frag. 30.

to : cf. refers to and %a&gt;ois &lt;j&gt;v&lt;ris &lt;f&gt;vrois ^u%7 fr;ig. 43. The first movement is the diurnal revolution &lt;j&gt;op&lt;is. from east to west (from one rising to another) : the second is described Kara rov the orbit &lt;pBuucbv KVK\OV, occupying either a year or a month, as the case may be. For the Zodiac cf. Diog. L. vn. 155, 150. with the aether which vir6 TO! Koo-fxov, i.e. they move revolves round the three lower strata of the world. These latter are themselves stationary, so that /eooyiou is used as in Cleanth. frag. 48, 1. 7, where see note. The whole structure of the cosmos is very clearly expounded by Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 21. f. p. 184, 185; and cf. TO especially rov...KO(Tp,ov ro fjiev elvai Trepifyepofievov Trepl TO 8 rov VTTO- fjL&lt;rov VTTOfjievov 7Tpi&lt;f)ep6/j,evov iikv aldepa tcai fjLevov Be rr)V yrjv KOI ra eV avrijs vypd rov aepa...ro

8e avTaj ev &&gt; ra 7repi&lt;j&gt;ep6fj,evov eyKVK\io)&lt;f aWepa elvat, T fcal Oeia darpa KadiBpvrat, rd dir\avrj rd 7r\ava&gt;/jLeva, THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 127

fyvcriv ovra KOL e/jb^rv^a real Sioitcovfjieva Kara TTJV Trpovoiav. u8iov: according to Diels, the ace. is "insolenter dictum" and requires the addition of et?, but it has been pointed out to me that the true explanation of the ace.

is to be found in the fact that &lt;aSt,ov is a measure of = space 30 p,o2pat, Hippol. Haer. v. 13: we should not therefore compare (jLeraftds ftiorov Eur. Hipp. 1292, which is in any case different. For the fact cf. Diog. vii. 144.

TCIS 8 KXft\J/is : see infra frag. 73.

" Kal : entire (it^ovs Narrows and partial."

72. Cic. N. D. I. 36, idem (Zeno) astris hoc idem (i.e. vim divinam) tribuit turn annis, mensibus, annorum- mutationibus. &lt;[iie astris. On the other hand the Epicureans taught that the stars could not possess happiness or move in consequence of design. Diog. L. X. 77, /^re av TrvpwSr) rivd avvecnpan-p.eva rrjv fjuaKapiorr/Ta KKTr)/j.eva Kara

annis: probably Zeno did not stop to enquire whether the seasons etc. were corporeal or not: he regarded them as divine "als regelmassig erfolgende Umlaufe der Sonne

und des Mondes" (Krische, p. 389). Chrysippus must have been hard pressed when he delivered the extraordinary opinion quoted by Plut. Comm. Not. 45, 5 (see Zeller,

Stoics p. 131). Krische appositely quotes Plat. Leg. x. p.

899 B, dcTTpwv 8e Brj Trepl Trdvrwv KOU creX^yr/? eviavrwv re Kal teal iraawv riva d\\ov fMijvutv a&gt;pwv Trepi, \6yov rov avrov w? epov/^ev 17 rovrov, eVetS?} "^v-^rj /xev r/ -^rw%al 7rdvTO)i&gt; Tovrcav ainai efyavrjcrav, dyaOal Se Trdcrav dperrjv, deovs ? elvai elre ev iv &lt;f)r/&lt;TO[j,ev, awpao evovacu, ^wa

ovra, Kocr/jiovcri Trdvra ovpavov, eire OTTTJ re Kal OTTOK : In Sext. Math. IX. 184 an argument of Carneades is 128 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. quoted of the Sorites type, disproving the existence of If is God. the sun a god, so are days, months and years. This the Stoics might have admitted, but he concludes thus: a~vv TO&gt; droTTov elvai rrjv ^ev rj^epav 6eov elvat

\eyeiv, rr/v Be eo&gt; Kal rrjv fiea-rj^^piav Kal rrjv

L. VII. e/cXetVetj/ Be 73. Diog. 145, 6, rov /j,ev tf avrw Kara TO 7ri7rpoadova-rj&lt;? ffe\^vr)&lt;; 7rpo&lt;? T^a eo? Tii^vwv dvaypd^ei ev TO&gt; Trepl o\ov. (^aiverai yap rat? &lt;rvv68ois Kal aTroKpvTTTOvcra avrov /cat 7rapa\\drrovcra. yvcopL^erai Be rovro Bid Xe/caj/7;? vBwp e^oua?;?. rrjv Be creXr/vrjv /j,7ri7TTOvcrav 6t? TO TT;? 66ev Kal Tat? trava 7^9 aiciacrfjLa. e\T/voi&lt;; eK\etTTlv jjiovais, Kaijrep Kara Bidp-erpov lara^vrfv Kara fjLrjva TCO TOJ^ r)\i(p on Kara \oov co? TT^O? ij\iov Kivovftevr) 7rapa\-

\drret ru&gt; "ir\drei 17 ftopeiorepa rj voriwrepa yivofAevTj.

6rav /LtefTOt TO TrXaTO? avrijs Kara rov r)\iaKov Kal rov

Bid iieawv yevijrai elra 8ia/j,erpjjcrr] rov ij\tov rore

The eclipse of the sun owing to the interposi tion of the moon between it and the earth is a doctrine attributed by Stobaeus to Thales, the Pythagoreans, and b C I. 25. 1 Empedocles (Eel. 3 3 ): the same explanation was also given by Anaxagoras (Zeller, pre-Socratics II. p. 361). The same account is given by the Stoic in Cic. N. D. II. 103, luna...subiecta atque opposita soli radios eitis et lumen obscurat, turn ipsa incidens in umbram terrae, cum est e regione solis, interpositu interiectuque terrae repente deficit.

" &lt;rvv68ois at rais the period of conjunction." Cf. Cic. Rep. I. 25, ... docuisse cives suos dicitur, id quod ipse ab Anaxagora, cuius auditor fuerat, exceperat, certo illud (eclipse of sun) tempore fieri et necessario, THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 12.9

cum tota sc luna sub orbein solis subiecisset: itaque, etsi non omni intermenstruo, tamen id fieri non posse nisi certo intermenstruo tempore. Thuc. n. 28.

cf. Stob. Eel. i. 2(5. v, 3, p. 221, 23, Xpvannro&lt;;

T&gt;]v ae\r)VrjV T&gt;/9 7*7? aVTr) 7Tl7rpO(T00V(T r)S Kdi et9 (Ttciav dvTrjs efMTrlTTTOvaav.

Travo-tXTJvois : the fact was a matter of common observa tion: cf. Thuc. vii. K\L7rei 50, 77 /jLr/vrj eTvj^ave yap

7rai&gt;(7e\rjvo&lt;; ovaa.

Kara. Xooi): hence e\iKOi8r) in Diog. L. vii. 144, see Krische p. 889.

Sid scil. o&gt;8tW. There is (Ato-wv nothing distinctively Stoic in these explanations. Zeno was simply repeating the ordinary scientific theories of his age. Epicurus gave alternative of explanations, which this is one (Diog. L. x. 96).

74. L. vii. 153, 154, 8e Diog. da-Tpa-n-^v e^a^ru&gt; VTTO ve&lt;f&gt;c5v TrapaTpifiopevcov rj pyyvvfjievcov Trvev^aro^, w? V TO) 0\OV 8e TOV TOVTWV K TTCpl /3pOVTl]l&gt; l}f6(f)Ol&gt;

s rj St pqgew Kepavvov egatyiv &lt;r&lt;f&gt;o8pciv pent s TTLTTTova-av eVt 7^9 v(pcov

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 29. Chrysippus ap. 1, p. 233, 9, da-rpa-

TTTJV ega-friv ve(j)v eKTpifio^evwv r} pijyvvfjievwv VTTO irvev- /uaTo?, 8 elvai TOV TOVTWV 8e /3povrr/v ^ro^)ov...orav rj TOV TTvevpaTOs teal (popd &lt;T(j)o8pOTepa yevrjTai 7rvpw8ij&lt;f, Kepav vov aTTOTeXdadai. ib. p. 234, 1 where the same views are attributed to ol STOM/COI. Here again there is nothing specially characteristic of the Stoa: Epicurus, as was his wont, gave a number of possible explanations and amongst them these: see L. x. Diog. 100103, cf. Lucr. vi. 90 f.

1 02 f. 246 f. (thunder), (lightning), (thunderbolts). Lucan r. 151, qualiter expressum veutis per nubila fulmen aetheris impulsi sonitu etc. Aristoph. Nub. 404 foil. H. P. 9 130 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

in 75. Senec. Nat. Quaest. vil. 10. 1, Zenon noster radios inter ilia sententia est: congruere iudicat stellas, et se committere: hac societate In minis existere imaginem

stellae longioris. of the Stoic school seem to On this point the majority have deviated from the teaching of Zeno, considering his Be Kal view unsatisfactory: thus Diog. VII. 152, jco/uqra? elvai Trvyttivias Kal Xa/r7raS/a* Trvpd vfavrwra, Tra^ou* rorrov cf. Stob. Eel. I. depot ei? rov alOep^Btj dveve^Oevrot, Sen. 28. 1* p. 228, 6, BoTjtfof depot avrjupevov fyavraaiav.

cometas. . .denso aere N. Q. vil. 21, placet ergo nostris creari.

e 76. Stob. Eel. I. 8. 40 p. 104, 7, Zryi/aw rovro Be Kal ypovov elvai Kivijaewt Btdcrrrj/j.a, perpov Kal O7ra)9 xpinipiov ra^ou? re /3pa8i/T/?TO9 e^e Kal rd Kara TOVTOV Be yiyvea-Bai rd ^ivo^eva aTtavra Kal rd ovra elvai. Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a 4, 7rX&5? Ktvr rdov Be ^.rwiKwv Ztjvatv }iev rrdaTjs )(T(i&gt;&lt;; vai wno oes on to ^^ Biuarrjaa rov XP VOV &gt; g ^J the words Chrysippus limited the definition by adding vil. en Be Kal rov rov Koa-fjLOV. Cf. Diog. 141, xpovov

ovra rov KOO-/J.OV KIVJJ crews. d&lt;T(afj.arov, idarrip.a rijs on Cic. N. D. I. Varro L. L. VI. 3 (quoted by Prof. Mayor dicunt intervallum mundi motus. See 21.), tempus esse Plotin. Ennead. in. 7. 6, Sext. also Zeller p. 198 and add

f. x. 170 f. Zeno held as Pyrrh. in. 136 Math. against and that it is Chrysippus that time existed from eternity, not merely coeval with the phenomenal world. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 223225. ^Kewrra is added by Wachsm. and some word is clearly wanted: Posidonius however in reproducing the clause Eel. I. H. 42, 105, has OTTO)? e-%ei TO emvoovpevov (Stob. p. the comma 21). It seems better to remove usually placed THE FRAGMENTS OF XEXO. 131

after /BpaBvrrjro^, as the genitives depend at least as on as much OTTW? ^X ei on /^erpov Kal Kpirtjpiov, cf. e.g.

II. Thuc. 00. 4, &5? *x T(^ot"&gt; e/cacTTo?. airavra must be corrupt, as some verb is required to

balance ylveo-dai and elvai. Usener suggests diraprL^ecrOat,, which cf. gives the required sense, (iTraprLa-fjiov. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 8. 42, p. 106, 17. Diels correction airav- -rav is less satisfactory in meaning.

77. de die Nat. xvn. 2, quare qui annos saeculum triginta ]&gt;utarunt multum videntur errasse. hoc enim vocari Heraclitus auctor tempus genean est, &lt;|uia orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio. orbem autem vocat aetatis dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur. hoc quidem geneas tempus alii aliter deh nierunt. Hero- dicus annos et quinque viginti scribit, Zenon triginta. yenean : this substantially accords with the popular reckoning as recorded by Herod. II. 142, yeveai yap ICTTL. r/oet? &lt;iv8p(av eKaTov ered

Heroclitus : for the other authorities which attribute this statement to Heraclitus see Zeller pre-Socratics n. ]. n. 4 S7, and frags. 87 and 88 ed. By water. sementi: saeculum is properly used with the meaning

" " generation and this supports the derivation from sero, satus G. E. I. (Curtius p. 474 Eng. Tr.). For examples see the Lexx.

Herudicus: either (1) the Alexandrian grammarian, or

the : (2) physician of see ]). Biog. Zenon: according to Wachsmuth Jahn proposes to substitute Xenon, but the agreement with Heraclitus rather points to the founder of the Stoa.

78. Stob. 1. Eel. 10. 1, p. 149, 8, V^vwv 6 ^.TWIKOS rd Trpwrovs elvai a-^Tj^aria/jLov^ T//9 v\r)s. The 132 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

in Galen same words occur also in Pint. plac. I. 15. 5 and

Hist. Phil. c. 10. XIX. 258 Kuhn. The above extracts appear to represent all that is known of the Stoic theories about colour: for the Epi curean view cf. Lucr. II. 795 foil. Stein, Erkeuntnistheorie observes that the definition, that p. 310, rightly implying Zeno s colour is an actual attribute of matter, indicates reliance on sense-impressions.

ill. 2. 9 Diels 79. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. (ill. 36), p. Be TT&gt;) air TWV TTTJ e&lt;j&gt; rjniv 592, ra&lt;? Be las -rrpay^cnwv pkv TWV rd e&lt;/&gt; ijpiv OIK riplv, rovrea-Ti, pei&gt; Trpaj^iTwv e&lt;f&gt; T(t Be OVK e&lt;$&gt; r^ilv. held *a0 We have already seen that Zeno elfiapfjievrjv 45. How then are we to TU -rrdvra ^veadai, frag. that free reconcile with this doctrine of necessity the fact ? will is here allowed to mankind even in a limited degree with The Stoic answer is most clearly given by the simile adv. which they supported their position, cf. Hippolyt. elvai Haeres. I. 18, teal avTol Be TO xad eipapplvijv Travrtj TOIOVTW oTt BiefteftaioHravTO TrapaBeiy/J-ari ^p^ffd^evoi, edv @ov\r)Tai uxnrep oxwaTOS edv $ e^pTrj^evos KVWV, pev eTreo-Oat icai e\KeTai Kal e-rre-rai kictav, -rroiatv real TO avTJ~ov- Be olov T?;? el^apfj,evT)^ edv pi] aiov fieTa r^&lt;? dvd^Kt]S TO av-ro TTOV @ov\r)Tai 7rea-6ai Trdinw dvayKaa6&gt;]creTaf orj Kal aKO\ovdelv Kal e-rri TWI&gt; dvdpwTrwV M povXopevoi yap els TO ei&lt;re\0eiv. dvayKao-6ij(rovTat -jrdvTWS ire-rrpw^evov to Cleanthes as it The simile itself very possibly belongs in 91. accords exactly with his lines frag. Chrysippus with the difficulties in which he was struggled vigorously involved in maintaining this theory: see the authorities 177 foil. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie collected by Zeller p. who ascribes to Cleanthes the introduction pp. 328332, to notice of the Stoic answer to the dilemma, has omitted THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 133

the present frag, and does an to Zeno in asserting that the conflict between free will and necessity never presented itself to his mind.

80. Censorinus de die Nat. iv. 10, Zenon Citicus, Stoicae sectae conditor, principium huinano generi ex novo inundo constitutum putavit, primosque homines ex solo adminiculo divini ignis, id est dei providentia, genitos. This doctrine is connected with that of the destructi-

bility of the world : cf. frag. 5G, where however there is unfortunately a lacuna at the point where the origin of man is being discussed, otyfyovov in that passage must

not be supposed to be at variance with this : the argu ment there is simply to show that the world cannot be without beginning, because facts show that mankind has not existed from eternity. Zeno is, therefore, distinctly opposed to a theory of progression; mankind was produced in the first instance, when the primary fire was in full and was formed out of the divine essence sway, entirely ; the inference must be that men have degenerated through the assimilation of coarser substances, and in this con nection we may perhaps point to Posidonius belief in the popular view of a , when there was a complete supremacy of wise men. Senec. Ep. 90, 5. There is a parallel to this passage in Sext. Math. IX. 28 where the arguments given by various schools for the existence of are recited, T&V 8e crrwuewv gods being vewrepwv $&gt;aai Tives TOI)? TTpwrovs KOI yr/yeveis rwv dvOpunrwv Kara TTO\V TWV vvv crvvecrei w? Siafapovras yeyovevai, Trdpeari /jia0elt&gt; K TGI)? teal T&gt;/9 i]fjLwv 7rpo&lt;? dp^aiorepov^ ?;p&)a? Klvov&lt;t, rt wajrep TreptrTov aladrfT^piov o"%6vras rr/v o^vrijTa

T?;? Biavoias 7Ti(3e/3\rjKevat. rfj 6eia (f)vcrt, /cal vorja-ai riva? Sut-c/^ei? 6eu&gt;v. Cf. Cic. Leg. I. 24. Tusc. in. 2, nunc parvulos mjbis dedit (natura) igniculos quos celeriter 134 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. malis nioribus opinionibusque depravati sic restiuguimus, ut nusquam naturae lumen appareat. For the anthropo this see 115. logical aspect of passage Stein, Psych, p.

81. Varro de Re Rust. II. 1, 3, sive enim aliquod fuit ThalesMilesius principium generandi animalium.ut putavit et Zeno Citieus, sive contra principium horum exstitit Aristoteles nullurn, ut credidit Pythagoras Samius et

Stagirites. of the world It is obvious that only on the hypothesis without is the doctrine in its present form being beginning race or of animals of the eternity of the human possible. 1. 10 279 b Aristotle, however, expressly says (de Caelo 12) the world to that none of his predecessors had held Unless therefore be without beginning in this sense. in the Aristotle is mistaken, the reference to Pythagoras must be erroneous: see the discussion present passage and in Zeller pre-Socratics I. pp. 439442 especially ib. 11. 2 and for the similar case of p. 439 see also on Ar. Pol. II. 8 1269 a 5. At p. 570: Newman of any rate Zeno is in agreement with the great majority those who went before him: the early philosophers held for the action the most part that animal life was produced by as of the sun s rays on the primitive slime, , Xenophaues, Parmenides, and (Zeller 1. c. I. pp. or the as 255, 577, 001, II. p. 392), on earth, Diogenes

I. Somewhat similar were the of (ib. p. 296). views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras (ib. II. pp. 160, 365).

e-rrra 82. Schol. ad Plat. Alcib. I. p. 121 E Si?

6 reXeto? eV &lt;9 Tore yap rnjiiv (i7ro&lt;f&gt;aiverai \6yos, Apiffro- Kal 7jr]vwv Kal AXjc/MU&P 6 Ylvdayopeios fyaaiv. TrdXiv roivvv TOV Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 8, p. 317, 21, irepl

vov Kal 7racr(Jui&gt; THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 135

01 "^.rwiKol TOI&gt; IJLCV \eyov(TL /AI) evdvs efA&lt;f)V&0ai \oyov, Se TTO TWV ala-6r /cal varepov o-vvaOpoi^ecrdat, ]creu&gt;v (fravra- CTLWV Trepl SeKareaaapa errj. Plut. plac. IV. 11, o Se ^0709 tcaO uv 7rpocrayopev6fj,0a \oyiKol etc rwv

avfj,7r\rjpova 0aL \eyerai Kara rrjv Trpcorrj (This points to some slight divergence in the school itself as to the exact period of life at which 6 ^0709 reXetourat :

secus Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 116, but how can = VII. ..CLTTO 7r\r]povadai "begin"?) Diog. 55, fywvr]. o (ITTO eKTre/jiTTO/jievr), o$9 Aioyevr/s (frrjaiv r/ris

era&gt;v reXeiovrai. The mind at birth is a : of and reason lies in the application 77^0X^6^9 ei&gt;voiai, which are themselves ultimately founded on external impressions, cf. Cleanth. fr. 37 dvpaOev elaicpivecrdaL rov i ovv. The present fragment has been generally overlooked. A\K(iawv: this statement is not referred to in Zeller s account of Alcmaeori (pre-Socr. I. pp. 521 526). For

Aristotle cf. Pol. I. 13 1260 a 14.

83. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20, 2. Ar. Did. fr. phys. 39, Diels Be ra p. 470, Trepl ^rv^rj&lt;^ K^eavdrj^ p,ev Tirjixovos 7rpo9 (TvyKpicnv rijv irpo^ rou9 on

ael yap e^fyavicrai, on al ^rw^ai dva0vfAi,a)fj,evai voepai etKacrev OVTCOS TTOTCI- yivovrai avras rot9 7TOTa/aoi9 \eyu&gt;v rolati avrolcrtv e/n/Batvovcriv erepa Kal erepa voara

Kal ^rv^al 8e (ITTO TU&gt;V vypwv a TCO cnv [j,ev ovv o/ioi&)9 Hpa/cXetVw rrjv

i Zrjvcov, (iLcrdrjTifCTJv 8e avrrjv elvai Bid TOVTO TO s \eyei, on rvTrovaOai re Bvvarai, [TO neyedos~\ TO /iepo9

i]yov/jLevov avrrjs (ITTO rwv ovrwv Kal vTrap^ovrutv Ota rwv Kal TrapaBe^eaOai r9 TVirwcreis ravra yap


iiv : the MSS. have aia-drja-tv 77 but the correction

(made by Wellmann p. 475 and Zeller p. 212) is rendered certain by the parallel passage in ps-Plut. vit. horn. c. 127, rrjv 01 ^.rcaiKol Kal ^fv^rjv opl^ovrat Trvevpa &lt;ru/i&lt;/&gt;ue&lt;&gt; dvaBvjUturiV al&QrjriKrjv dva7rrop,evrjv (ITTO rwv ev trw/nart vypwv.

: cf. I. avaev|ia&lt;riv Ar. de Anim. 2. 16. 405 a 25, ical Be elvai H/3aXetro&lt;? TTJV dpyyv &lt;f)r)(ri "^rv^v, eiTrep TTJV dvaOvfjLLacnv, e r*&lt;? raXXa avviaTrjaiv, i.e. Aristotle identi

" fies the dva0v/j,ia(ri&lt;; (" fiery process Wallace) with TrOp. Zeno adopts the word as an apt description of the warm breath of which the soul is composed. vopa. The soul s rational power is constantly renewed by the fiery process, because it is fed by the emanations from the Trepte-^ov according to Heraclitus or from the moist parts of the body, i.e. the blood, according to Zeno. In this way Heraclitus explained his famous saying avrj

v r 74 ed. while the Stoics ty X l 0"0(o&gt;TaT77 (frag. Bywater), from their point of view regarded the excellence of the soul as consisting in a suitable admixture of heat. Stein, as there is Psych, p. 105. Hence, Diels observes, no necessity to read erepat del. ffKao-cv avrds: the principle of fravra pel applies no less to the soul than to the world in general : thus Arist. l.c. continues /cat dtrui^arutrarov re Kal peov ev dei TO Be Kcvov^evov Kivovpevw ycyvoocrKea-Oai Ktvr)&lt;ret B* elvai rd ovra xaKeivos cuero Kal oi TroXXot. The soul is voepd because it is in flux. For Trora/ioicrt cf. Plat. Crat. 402 A, HpaXe6T09...7roTa/zoi) por) djreiKa^wv rd ovra ainov OVK av and \eyet eo&lt;? 819 e? rov Trora^ov e^^alrj^. R P26.

Ko...dvaevpnivrai. Bywater Heracl. fr. 42 ascribes these words to Zeno and not to Heraclitus : the importance of this will appear presently. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 137

Heraclitus : the latter : sense as ofiouos i.e. in the same however would not have called the soul ala-Byrucy, dis

tinguishing as he did between sensation and knowledge : Kal wra (iv6p(aTcwv o(f)0a\/j,ol fiap/3&lt;ipovs

frag. 11 Sch. and Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,

: infers that Heraclitus held p. 1 2 hence Sextus rrjv aia-ffycriv elvai (Math. VII. 126).

: for K.T.\. o-eai cf. frag. 7, and airo TWV OVTWV frag. 11.

44 ed. 84. Rufus Ephes. de part, horn. p. Clinch, TO avro eivai Oep^aaiav 8e teal irvev/jia Yirjvwv (f)r)criv. This passage has been discovered by Stein, Psych, n. 81 to whose remarks the reader is referred.

85. Diog. L. VII. 157, Ztjvwv Se 6 KiTievs... 7ri&gt;eviJ.a elvai rovrto eivac evdepfjiov riijv "^rv^v. yap r//ji(i&lt;; /J,TTVO- ou9, Kal VTTO rovrov Kivel&Oai. Cf. Alex. Aphr. de an. p. 26, 16 ed. Bruns, 01 a-jrb

eli&gt;ai TIJS STO&lt;&gt; 7TJ&gt;evfjia avrtjv Xeyovres av^K.eip.e II. eVtt ovv IK. re TTu/30? Kal depos. Sext. Pyrrh. 70, TI Trvev/uia Kal TO ^yefAoviKov i] \.7rTOfj,pea-Tep6i&gt; K.T.\. If any of the authorities seem to assert that Heraclitus denned the soul as Trvevpa, this is doubtless either due to Stoic influence or is a mere gloss on ava-

in II. SO Qv^lacns : see the reff. Zeller pre-Socratics p. where however the reference to Sext. Math. ix. 363 (leg. 361) is a mistake, as the passage is dealing with rd TWV is the defini OVTWV (TToi^ela. Not dissimilar Epicurean

: L. X. eVrt XCTTTO- tion of the soul Diog. 63, 77 ^^^77 a-w^d

^tepe? Trap o\ov TO adpoicr/jia TrapecrTrapfMevov TrpocrefM- Sext. 0tpecTTaToz/ 8e TrvevfiaTL depp-ov Tiva Kpdcriv e-^ovTL. ovaai (al Kal Emp. Math. IX. 71, XCTTTO /^epei? yap -^rv^al) et? roi)? dvw ovy TITTOV 7rvp(a?)ei&lt;; r; TrvevfAaTwSeis /j,d\\ov TOTTOU? Kov 138 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

viro TOVTOV Kivicr0ai : il ^- 9 1

86. Cic. Acad. I. .89, (Zeno) statuebat igncm esse ipsam naturam quae quidque gigneret et mentem atque sensus. Fin. IV. 12, cum autem quaereretur res admodum difticilis, num quinta quaedam natura videretur csse ex qua ratio et intellegentia oriretur, in quo ctiam de animis cuius generis essent quaereretur, Zeno id dixit esse ignem. Tusc. I. 19, Zenoni Stoico animus ignis videtur.

See also Stein, Psychologic p. 101.

87. Galen plac. Hippocr. et Plat. II. 8 (v. 283 Kiihn), el Be ye eTroiro (Aioyevr)? 6 Ba/3tAamo9) K\edv8ei teal Kal e Tirjvwvi, rpe^ecrOai fiev at/zaro? 0?;cra&lt;Ti ovatav 5 avT^ V7rdp%eiv TO Trvevfia. It is doubtful whether the doctrine of the nourishment of the soul by the blood was held by Heraclitus and from him derived by Zeno. The only authority, besides the doubtful passage of Arius Didymus (frag. 83), from which it can be argued that such a view belonged to him is Nemes. Nat. Horn. c. 2 p. 28 (quoted by Zeller, pre-

Socratics II. Se rov Travros p. 80) Hpa/cXetro? rrjv "^v^r/it etc however on dvaQv/j,iaaii&gt; rwv vypwv, who goes expressly to distinguish the individual soul from the world-soul and states that the former is composed Vo rr;9 e /cro? (dvaOv- fjudaew^}. It is best therefore to regard this as a Stoic : just as the stars in the fiery aether are fed by the moist particles rising from the watery zone which they enclose, so is the fiery soul fed by the moist blood : thus man is in himself an organic whole, and the microcosm of the individual is an exact parallel to the macrocosm of the universe. Further references ap. Zeller p. 212 n. 2.

With regard to this passage, Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 10) suggests that there is here a confusion between Zeno of Citium and Zeno of Tarsus, but there is no necessity THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO. 130 to adopt this supposition: that Zcno held the soul to br fed from the internal moisture of the body, which must if leave of be the blood, is clear from frag. 83 even we out account the frag, next following.

E. XV. 88. Longinus ap. Euseb. P. 21, Zrjvcovt fj,ev Kal K\edv0ei vefMear/creie rt? av SIAOU CO? ovrw crtfroSpa /cal Trepl avri^ (scil. ^L% /?) 8ia\e%6ela-L rov a/ eivat, ravTov d/jL(pw crrepeov /xaro? rrjv "^v%rjv aff. cur. (prjaacri. Theodoret, gr. p. 934 Migne, KOI rov &lt;ydp (JArivwv K\edv0rjs) crrepeov at/zoro? eivac rrjv tyv^v dvadv^lauiv. In both cases the MSS. have crcw/noro? for al/iaro?, but the words are often confused and crw/LtaTo? yields no satisfactory sense. The emendation is made by Stein, is the which he Psychol. p. 107, and confirmed by passages cites from (v. 33, vi. 15). arepeov at/iaro? is rather an odd expression, but was probably introduced

of contrast to as 7rvevfj,a. by way "^fv-^rj \7nofjiepecrTarov For d but the word is some /jL(j)fi} Viger suggested d^olv, times indeclinable.

89. Tertullian do Anima, c. 5, denique Zeno con- sit definiens anirnam hoc modo um spiritum instruit, "quo"

animal est : consito inquit "digresso ernoritur, corpus autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur: ergo consitus anima est: sjiiritus corpus est: consitus autem spiritus ergo coi pus est anima." Macrob. Somn. Sc. I. 14. 19, Zenon (dixit animam) concretum corpori spiritum. Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Nem. Nat. Horn. c. 2, p. 33, o aTto Se crn ^typicryu-o? ^rvxfis crwfAaTOS ov8tv

d,7ro &lt;To ov&e &gt;/iaro9 ^wpl^erai yap

See Stoics rov trw/aaro?. ado/aa dpa Y) ~^~v^. Zeller, 140 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

illustrations p. 211, where further to this and the following frag, will be found in the notes, concretum or consitum = corpori spirituni Chrys. ap. Galen. Hipp, et Plat. III. 1 287 eart, (V. Kiihn), rj ^v^t] Trvevfid crv/j.&lt;f)VTOV r^lv cTwe^es Travrl T&&gt; crca^arc StrJKov (quoted by Zeller). For cjuo digresso etc. cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 18, sunt qui discessum animi a corpore putent esse mortem. Plat. Phaed. 64 c, a a\\o TI rov ddvarov pa /LIT) (r/yovfj,e6a elvai) f/ rrjv rtj&lt;f

90. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 220, Spiritum quippe animam esse Zenon quaerit hactenus : quo recedente a corpore moritur animal, hoc certe anima est. natural! porro spiritu recedente moritur animal : naturalis igitur spirit us anima est.

It is possible that this passage and the extract from

Tertullian (fr. 89) are derived from a common original, but, as in their present form the syllogisms are directed to distinct points, it has been thought better to keep them separate.

91. Galen, Hist. Phil. 24, Diels, p. 613, TJV Be ovaiav oi w? avrijs (tyv%fjs) /Ltei&gt; (icrwp.aTOv e&lt;j&gt;acrav

01 Be crdojjLara Kivtiv to? /jrjvwv real ol e avrov. yap elvai Tavrrjv inrevorjcrav KOI OVTOI. KIVCIV. but has &lt;rw|iaTa So MS. A, B creo/tara crir/Kivovv Latin version of and the Nicolaus has "corpus simul secum movens." Wachsm. KLVOVV. conj. &lt;r&)fta crwp-ara a^a

: rd KLVOVV. Diels : Usener crw/j-a crca^ara au&gt;^a avro KIVOVV sive e^ eavrov Kivov^ievov. Coll. Gal. def. Mod. 30

Kara 8e rov&lt;t STOH/COI)&lt;? croiifia XeTrro/iepe? e^ eavrov KIV- ovpevov. Whatever may be the right reading, crwpa certainly seems wanted as well as eroj/iara to point the contrast with Plato. For the doctrine of the soul re- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 141 garded as the principle of movement, see the summary of the views of previous philosophers given by Arist. de An. I. 2. 26, 403 b 27404 b 7. That the soul was self- moving as being the principle of motion, was a dis tinctively Platonic dogma, Phaedr. 245 C, prj d\\o n elvai avro eavro KLVOVV 895 TO r) ^rv^tiv. Legg. A, -^rv^v ...rrjv ^vvafjievriv avrrjv Kivelv Kivricnv, where the argument is made use of to prove the immortality of the soul. For the Stoics cf. Sext. Math. ix. 102, TTCKJ^ yap

&lt;ucrew? Kal So/eel "fyvxrjs )} Karap-^i] rrjs Kivrjcrea)^ yiveaOai afro rjye/jLoviKov, and the references collected by Stein, Psych, nn. 217 and 221 to which add M. Aurel. v. 19. The theory of rovos throws an entirely new light on this, as on many other Stoic doctrines, which were originally adopted on independent grounds.

92. Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 367, IS, d\\d ^ev ol ye

(ITTO \pvcri7nrov Kal Yjrjvwvos (f)i\6cro(f)0i Kal Trdvres oaoi a-wfJia Tt}v ^rv^v voovcri, rs" f^-ev BwdfAeis w? ev TO) St V7TOKeifJ,va&gt; TTOtor^Ta? o-u/j,/3i/3d^oucTi, Ttjv ^rv^rjv w? ovcriav rat? TiOeacriv, GK & Trpov7roKei{A}&gt;rjv Svva/Aecrt dfj,&lt;f)o- repcov TOVTWV avvderov (frvcriv e dvo^oiwv avvdyovcnv. TroioT^Tas...ovo-iav. This distinction we have already met with in frag. 53. It properly belongs to the depart ment of logic but, in consequence of the Stoic materialism, it has also a quasi-physical application : see Zeller, Stoics, pp. 105, 127, Reid on Cic. Ac. I. 24 foil. The different activities of the soul bear the same relation to the soul as a whole, as the qualities of any particular object bear to its substance : hence Sext. Emp. Math. vu. 234, (paa-l TO re yap ^rv^rjv \eyea~6ai 8f^&lt;w? crvve^ov rrjv 6\rfv crvy- Kal Kar ISi av TO rjye^iovLKOv.

VT]v : for the significance of this expression, see Stein, Erkenntriistheorie, p. 310. 142 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

93. N ernes. de Nat. Horn. p. 96, Zijvcov 8e 6

elvai is f&gt;r]criv Ti]v ^rv^rjv, Siaipwv avTrjv

rjyffjLoviKov Kal etV ra&lt;? TTVT cuV6tycret&lt; Kal ei? TO

TIKOV KOI TO (TTreppaTiKov. Stub. Eel. I. 49. 34, p. 369, 6, ol GLTTO /iijvwvos OKTapepr) TI]V ^fv-^t}^ Biaoo^d^ovcrt ra? elvai ev TW &lt;rjv&gt; 8vvdfj,ei&lt;f TrXeioya?, tocnrep

evvrrap-^ovaMV fyavraaias, criry/caTa^ecrea)?, opjj.ij&lt;;, \6yov. We must distinguish tho pepr) ^v^f)*; from the Su- vdpets, for they are not identical, as the passage in

Stoba-us shows. Sext. Math. vn. Kal &gt; Emp. 237, yap ; Kal Kal opurj r] crv&lt;yKaT(i6cri&lt;i 77 /caraX^^tv erepotwcret? elcrl TOV rjyepovtKov. In spite of this eightfold division of local extension (see Zeller, p. 214 n. 2) the Stoics held the unity of the soul as an essence : see especially Stein, Psych, pp. 119, 122, who suggests "soul-functions"

" as a more suitable expression for the Stoics than parts of the soul".

T&lt;J ^Y*HLOVIK&lt;&gt; V - "We have clear evidence here that the term r/yepoviKov is Zenonian. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie nn. 219 and G93, is inconsistent on this point, in the former passage attributing its introduction to Cleanthes and in the latter to Zeno. It is very possible that Cleanthes first spoke of TO rjyep.oviKov TOV KOCT^OV, which with him was the sun, in furtherance of his view of man as a microcosm.

94. Tertullian de Anima, c. 14, dividitur autem in partes nunc in duas a Platone, nunc in tres a Zenone. This passage is at variance with the account given by

Nemesius. Wellmann, 1. c. p. 476, prefers the authority of Tertullian, thinking that the three divisions in question are the the and the ifyepoviKov, &lt;P(I)VIJTIKOV, (nreppaTiKov, and that the five organs of sense were regarded by Zeno as parts of the body, though the centre of sense resides THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 143

in the On the other hand 1. c. r/&lt;ye/j,ovitc6v. Weygoklt,

p. 30, and Heinze in Bnrsian s Jahresb. I. p. 191, think more trustworthy than Tertullian, and certainly the better opinion is that Zeno taught the eightfold division (see Stein s full discussion, Psych, pp. 158 160). It is just possible that the triple division mentioned by Tertullian is (1) TO ijyepoviKov, (2) the five senses, and (3) the voice and the reproductive organism, and that, if we were in possession of the full text of Zeno, the dis crepancy would explain itself. If all that we knew of Plato s psychological divisions had been contained in this passage and a statement that he divided the soul into \6yov evpv, dvfAoet&es, and eTriOvftrjTiKov, we should have had some difficulty in reconciling the two. Hirzel, II. p. 154, 155 appears to be unaware of the passage in Nemesius: he accepts the evidence of Tertullian, but explains it as an ethical rather than a physical distinction.

95. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36), Zrjvcav v Ktrtei)? 6 STOHKO? ..Seiv. TO Oelov ev rw e(f&gt;i. ..e^eiv fjiovw voj fid\\ov Be Oeov rjyeia Oai. rov vovv. eari, yap dOdva- TOS eXeye Se KCU fjierd ^wpiap-ov rov aui^aro^ KCti ercaXei ov Be rrjv fyv"%i]V Tro\v%poviov TrvevfJia, /JDJV a(f)6aprov 8S cA,ou e\eyev avr^v elvai. eKBcnravdrai yap VTTO rov TTO\\OV et? TO (Jf. ^povov d&lt;paves, w? tprjcri. August, contra Acad. in. 17, 3S, quamobrem cum Zeno sua ([iiadain de mundo et maxime de anima, propter quam vera philosophia vigilat, sententia delectaretur, dicens earn esse rnortalem, nee quidquam esse praeter hunc sensibilem in eo nisi mundum, nihilque agi corpore ; nam et deum ipsum ignem putabat.

TO 0iov: cf. Cleanth. frag. 21, Stein, Psychol. p. 97.

n-oXvxpoviov : the of this extract recalls the objection of in the to Socrates proof of 144 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

soul A 88 the immortality of the p. 87 B, recapitulated B cf. ro Be on by Socrates p. 95 E, especially a7ro&lt;paivetv evriv KOL OeoeiBes Kal en io-yvpbv ri rj tyvxf) r)v trporepov ovBev Kd)\veiv irdvra TTOIV 7;/itt9 dv6p(i)Trovs yevecrdai (f&gt;r)&lt;; ori Be re ravra firjvveiv dQavacriav fiev /JLTJ, TroKv^povLov

*a * v 7rov oaov eo-nv ^rvxn&gt; tf Tporepov d^-^avov xpovov TTO\\CL drra K.r.X. For the Kal ySei re tcai zrrparrev limited future existence which the Stoics allowed to the Schol. ad Lucaa ix. soul see Zeller, p. 218 foil, and add 1, de alii (animas) solidas quidem, postquam exierint corpore,

: haec permanere, sed deinde tractu temporis dissipari was considerable variation in opinio Stoicorum. There the various members of the soul : points of detail among see on Cleanth. frag. 41. as nvd TOV o-oi|iaTos: some such words -^povov Siapevetv have fallen out here.

this is not inconsistent with dOdvaros ov...a4&gt;6apTov: event above. The soul never perishes entirely, although vir. 156. ually it passes into a higher power, Diog. Be elvai. Stein ^rvyr}v fjierd Odvarov eTTipevetv, (frOaprrjv Psychol. p. 145.

96. Themist. dc An. G8 a Speng. II. p. 30, 24, a\V Tt? ofttB? 2,rivo)vi ftev i/TTO\i7reraL ajroXoyia KKpdcr0ai Kal 0X771; Si" 8\ov rov o-w/iaro? faiatcovn r-qv -tywxfiv rrjv dvev rov -rroiovvri. e^oBov avrijs &lt;}&gt;dopds o~wyKpip,aros prj

I. 406 a The passage of Aristotle is de An. 3 6, p. to 30 65, where he says that one of the objections the view that the soul Ktvei ro o-wfia is that in that case the soul s movements will correspond to those of the the soul do body, so that if the body moves locally, may the the same and change its position with regard to body

dv ro dvi&lt;r- by leaving it. el Be TOUT fVSe^erat, ihroir raffBai rd reBvewra roov tywv. We might therefore THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 14o infer from this passage that Zeno taught that the soul moved the body (frag. 91). says that Zeuo is rescued from this dilemma for which see on by the doctrine of /cpacrt? 01 u\wv, frag. 52. He seems to refer to the Stoic view of the soul as the bond of union for the body, so that body cannot exist qua body without the presence of soul, cf. Iambi, ap. read 8e Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 3G8, 6, oi)? pia

TO) crwfJiaTi. Sext. Math. IX. 72, ouoe yap Trporepov TO avrdov aXX, avral &lt;7u&gt;^a StaKpaTriTiKov i]v (TOOV -fyvxwv)

TU&gt; aiTLai K.T.\. The best illus &lt;T(t)/j,aTi (rvp-^ovf)^ r/crav tration however is Sext. Math. vn. 23-i, &lt;$&gt;a&lt;rl yap ^v^v \eyea~0ai Si^oj?, TO re crvve^ov TI]V o\r)v avytcpicriv /tal Kar ISlav TO rjyefjbovtKov. oTav yap eirrwfjLev crvvecrTavai,

TOV etc TOV etvai av6pw7Tov ^rv^rjf Kal crftj/zaro?, rj OavaTov

O.TCO t Stw? TO yjapicr^ov "fyvvfis crco/Ltaro?, Ka\ovfjiev lyye- JJLOVIKOV, the meaning of which passage seems to be that only the r^ye^oviKov and not the whole soul is said to depart, inasmuch as the corpse must possess avveKTiKr/ in the form of for otherwise it will be ovva/jw; eft&lt;?, altogether non-existent. (See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 105 foil.) But there is no inconsistency with the present passage, since the change of TO avve%ov from

t &lt; i s V &gt; TOV ~^ ")C1 &lt;j)0opd o-vy/cpl/uiaTos (for &lt;f)6opd

}(6dvaTos see on frag. 95).

97. Lactant. Inst. vu. 7. 20, Esse inferos Zenon

Stoicus docuit et sedes piorum ab impiis esse discretas : et illos (juidem quietas et delectabiles incolere regiones, hos vero luere poenas in tenebrosis locis atque in caeni voraginibus horrendis. Cf. Tertull. de anima c. 54, quos quidem miror quod imprudentes animas circa terrain prosternant cum illas

H. P. 10 14G THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. a sapientibus multo superioribus erudiri adfirment. ubi erit scholae regio in tanta distantia diversoriorum ? qua ratione discipulae ad magistros conventabunt, tanto dis- crimine invicem absentes ? quid autem illis postremae eruditionis usus ac fructus iam iam conflagratione peri- turis ? reliquas animas ad inferos deiciunt. Hirzel thinks that Virgil s description of the souls of the lost in Aen. vi. is derived from Stoic sources, and therefore ultimately from Zeno, and refers to Eel. vi. 31, Georg. IV. 220, Aen. vi. 724, for the influence of Stoicism on Virgil. The same writer correctly points out the distinction between the treatment of popular religion in this doctrine of Zeno and that which appears in those passages (to be presently considered) where the attributes of the popular are explained away by rationalistic allegory. He compares the spirit of the present passage with the Platonic myths, called by Grote "fanciful illustrations invented to expand and enliven general views," and suggests that it may have occurred in the TroXtreia, which Zeno, as we are told by Plutarch, directed against the Platonic school (see Hirzel, Untersuchungen n. pp. 25 31). It is certainly hardly credible that Zeno can have attached any philo sophical importance to a theory stated in these terms, and it is better to regard it as a concession to popular belief in a matter which could not be formulated with scientific precision. See also Stein, Psych, p. 149 and 162, who infers that Zeno agreed with Chrysippus rather than with Cleanthes in the controversy appearing in Clean th. frag. 41. The general view of the school was that the soul after death ascends to the upper aether and is preserved there among the stars to which it is akin : Sext. Math. ix. 73, 74, Cic. Tusc. I. 42, 43.

98. Pint. plac. IV. 21. 4, TO Be (fxavdzv VTTO rou THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 147

o elpr]/j,evov, KOI (f)a)vrjv Ka\ovcnv, ecrri rrvevp,a drro rov Kal / KOI rfyefioviKov f^e^pt (fxipvyyo^ y\a&gt;rr r]s rwv oltcelcov opydvwv. Cf. on Cleanth. fra. 43.

99. Eustath. in II. 2 506, p. 1158, 37,

"Q/jir/pos Kavravda elrcwv rov Kara T^r/vwva Trjs

" opov 7rpov7re/3a\ev elrrovra (pa)V7) eariv drjp rre-

Cf. L. VII. ecrrt Diog. 55, 8e (frcovr) drjp This is taken from frag, Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 12. Sound is produced by the breath coming in contact with the air in external ; the case of an animal the air is said to be struck vrrb op^rj^, while the voice of man is evapOpos KOI CLTTO Biavolas eKTre^Tro^evrj, Diog. 1. c. See also the passages quoted by Stein, Psychol. n. 248. Cf. Plato s Tim. 67 definition, p. B., oX&&gt;? ph ovv 81 wrwv VTT re Kal &lt;f&gt;a&gt;vr/v ddofiev rr/v depo&lt;? ey/ce&lt;f)a\ov al fj,aros fJ-^pt, ^v-^fj^ 7r\r)&gt;yr)v SiaStSo/j,evr)v. Ar. de An.

II. 8 discusses -v^o^o?, dico^, and fywvrj. Sound is formed orav 6 Kal V7rofjiVT) TrXT/Yei? drip firj 8ia%vdfj ( 3, p. 419 b voice is then defined as 21): A^O^O? ris e/^-^rv-^ov 420 b. and is ( 9, p. 5) minutely described.

100. et Plat. Galen, Hipp, plac. n. 5, v. p. 241, K, o vrro rwv arwiKutv 6 6avp,a^o[Jievos \6yo&lt;; Z^fty^o?...

" l a &$ Sid el 8e TTO X y P 4&gt;o&gt;vrj &lt;f&gt;dpvyyos %wpei. r/v roO ejKecf)d\ov xwpovaa, OVK dv Bid (pdpvyyos eywpei. oOev 8e Kal eKeWev \6yo&lt;f, (frwvr) ^wpel. \6yos 8e d-rro diavoias COCTT OVK ev rw *%o)pel, eyKe&lt;$d\w earlv r) Suivoia." It is to that tempting suggest ^0709 and fyiavr) have changed places: the argument would certainly be more if the transparent transposition were made : cf. the following passage in Galen, speaking of Diogenes Baby- lonius : odev e Kal /c7re/u,7reTat rj (^wvrj, 77 evapOpos OVKOVV 102 148 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

efceWev TOVTO oe Kdi r) (TTj^aivovcra evapdpos (pwvrj

KOI trceWev eKTre Wev /cat rj Xoyos &lt;ipa /iTrerat Galen s comment is that Zeno has omitted some of the while has too He necessary d^iu&gt;ij.ara, Diogenes many. also points out the fallacy underlying the preposition which is either e or VTTO to have UTTO, ambiguous ; ought been used, in which case the argument could never have stood the test of daylight. The gist however of his argument against Zeno, which is given at some length, is that Zeno has been deceived by the following fallacy : 66ev 6 \6yos tKTrefjiTreTai, e/cet Bei KOI TOV oia\oyio-/j,ov

TU&gt; O yiyveo~6ai, TOVTCCTTIV, ev eKtlvw fiopiw. TOVTO (prjcrofiev K elvai i/reOSo?, ov yap ei Tt /cara irpoaipecriv K7TfJ.7reTai KaT eicelvo TO poptov Sei/cvvTai TTJV TO ovSe TO rtip^eiv, Kaddjrep ovBe ovpov TTTV\OV ovSe TO Wachsmuth ov&e rj Kopv^a diroTraTrip,a. quotes further passages from Galen s argument in which Zeno s name is mentioned, but they add nothing to the words cited above. Chrysippus, and after him Diogenes of (Cic. N. D. I. 41), laboured to prove that the birth of Athene from the head of Zeus in no way conflicted with their view that the breast was the seat of reason (Zeller, 137. p. 364). See generally Stein, Psychol. p.

101. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 5, v. p. 247, Kal Kiihn, KOI TOVTO f3ov\Tai ye 7^vwv Xpi;crt7r7ro&lt;? iip,a

TCO.VT\ oiaoi8o&lt;rdai etc TOV TW (T&eTepa) yopta TTJV Trpoa"- et? Trecro/ TO? e^wdev eyyei opevrjv TW fiopica Kivr)&lt;ri,v TT/V iv TO {ip-yr}if T^? "^f~v)(T]^, atcrdrjTai fyjjov. This passage occurs in the course of the discussion as to and buivoia as a and &lt;f&gt;d)vr) parenthetical argument, Galen objects that there is no perceptible interval of time between the impression and the sensation. Cf. Pint. plac. of sense but iv. 23. 1, impressions are made on the organ THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 149

the seat of is in the feeling i}&lt;yepovucov. Philo de mund. 114 Pfeiff. Opif. p. (quoted on Cleanthes, frag. 3). See also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 306.

102. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. nr. 5, v. p. 322, Ku o re hn, Zrjvu&gt;v vrpo? TOI)? eTri\a/A/3avo/Aevov&lt;&gt;, on Trdvra rd " fyrovpeva ei&lt;? TO arofjua (pepei, efpr/crev dX)C ov rravra

tcaraTriverai ovre d\\u&gt;s civ ", T??? Karcnrocrews olfceiorepov ovre rwv el ?;? TV? KarajBdaews prjOevrcov, /u,/}

rov Owpaica TO IjyefAoviKov rjpJlv riv, et? o ravra irdvra (frepeTai. so I. Miiller for MSS. This obscure &lt;|&gt;pi, (frepeiv. passage was formerly punctuated as though Zeno s words extended from dX\" ov Trdvra to (peperai, but, if the context is read, it is at once plain that I. Miiller is right in putting the inverted commas after KarairiveTai. Chrysippus, who is being quoted, is aiming to prove the location of the 7776- in the breast of fjioviK.ov by the usage ordinary speech :

r e.g. dvaftaiveLV rov dvfjiov Karcnrivei.v rr]v %o\r)v cnra- Kararriveo-6aL KaraTTiwv ro pdy/^ara pr)0ei&gt; dTrr)\6ev: then comes this reference to Zeno, and the conclusion ovre (freperai is the inference drawn by Chrysippus from the facts stated. Still, it is by no means clear what was the force of the objection made to Zeno or of his rejoinder.

Miiller translates : Et Zeno reprehendentibus, quod in omnia, quae quaestionem vocarentur, in ore gestaret, at, inquit, non ornnia a me devorantur, apparently making Zeno the subject of (pepei, but the Latin is in other respects hardly less obscure than the Greek. Wachsmuth, who has the old punctuation, interprets

" Trdvra rd as " affectus fyrov/jieva and suggests (freperai for fyepeiv, but what meaning he deduces from the passage I do not understand. In this perplexity, the following explanation is suggested. Trdvra rd ^jrov^eva is the 150 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

of and the all objects of subject &lt;f&gt;epei objectors say: concerned with the mouth. investigation are ultimately S. ol are the For &lt;e pet see L. and 7ri\afi^av6^evot of intermediate Epicureans, who denied the existence any and vrtpaivoptvov (\fKTov) between o-rjfiaivov (rfxovri) cf. Sext. Math. vm. 11 fvyxfivov (TO eVro? viroKei^evov}, t ire rov foil, and esp. 13, ol Se pi Earueovpov...^talvovrak... TO dXr/des tcai aaro\tiirei&gt;v. Diog. L. Trepl rfj &lt;f&gt;a)i&gt;f) vJreOSo? TCO X. 33, TTO.V ouv Trpayfjict OVOfJMTi -rrpcardx; eTTLTerayfj-eva) went hand in hand evapyes eVrt. But this nominalism with the most absolute credence in every sense-perception. To the Stoic, however, not every fyavraaia is evapyrjs, but

Zeno s : only that which is Kara\r)7TTiKrj. Hence reply however this may be, we can t swallow everything, xara- for as TTiverat is substituted /cara\a/j.^dvTat, just &lt;rr6fj.a takes the of Some confirmation of this place &lt;f&gt;a)vij. guess may be found in the recurrence of TO fyrovnevov, r)Tctv, Math. etc. in Epicurean texts (Diog. x. 33, 37, 38, Sext. this XL 21). If Muller s punctuation is adopted, fragment ought rather to be numbered with the diro^OeyfjiaTa, but, in a matter of so much uncertainty, I have not ventured to remove it from the physical fragments, among which it is placed by Wachsmuth.

" ovrc K.T.X.. It would not be correct to speak of swallow

" " " in other case ing or imbibing another s words, any el the dominant of the soul were unless (a\Xo&gt;&lt;? p.ij) part in the breast. For Karajroa-ewi cf. Ar. Ach. 484 (of encouraging his #17x09 to persevere in taking OVK et Kara- the part of the Lacedaemonians) eo-T^/ca? ;

103. Cic. de Divin. II. 119, contrahi autem animuin et esse Zeno et quasi labi putat atque concidere ipsum dormire. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 151

Elsewhere sleep is said to be caused by a slackening of the tension in the Trvevpa. Diog. L. VII. 158, rov 8e

VTTVOV yiveadai K\vofiei OV rov ala diyri/cov rovov jrepl TO r/yefMOviicov. Plut. plac. V. 23. 4, H\drwv ol ^rwi/col rov avecret, jj,ev vrrvov yivecrdai rov alcrOr^rtKov rrvevp^aros, ou errl /car nva-^aXacrfjLOv, KaOdrcep rrjs 7?}?, fyepo^evov 8e &lt;w? eVt TO r/yefMoviKov ^ecrofypvov. For Plato s theory of sleep cf. Tim. p. 45 D, E, and for the Stoics, Stein, Psychol. p. 141.

104. Stob. Flor. Monac. 198, 6 avros (Zijvcov) tyy drro rov ro r&gt;]v 8e Trjv p-ev opaatv depos \ap*ftdvei,v &lt;pu&gt;s, arro ^ITV^JV rwv /j,a0r)[jt,dr(i)v.

For the Stoic theory of vision see Zeller, p. 221, 11. 4. Stein, Psych, n. 241. In Plut, plac. IV. 21, opacr^ is defined as rrvevpa oiareivov diro r;y6[j,oviKov /te^pi? The views of the ancient before o^)9a\iJLu&gt;v. philosophers Aristotle will be found concisely stated in Grote s Plato,

III. 265 n., and for Aristotle see Grote s Aristotle, p. 465.

105. Varro de L. L. v. 59, sive, ut Zenon Citieus,

animalium sernen ignis is, qui anima ac mens. Mueller s punctuation of the passage has been followed: in Spengel s edition, Zeno s statement is made to extend = farther, ignis Trvevfia in the next fragment. Zeller remarks: "Plutarch (Plac. V. 16, 2. 17, 1. 24, 1) draws attention to the inconsistency of saying that the animal soul, which is warmer and rarer than the soul, has been developed thereout by cooling and condensation," this p. 213, n. 1. Stein s explanation of (Psych, is to p. 115 117) is ingenious, but he driven assume that is warmer than which seems &lt;f)vcri&lt;; ^v^n, question able.

106. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 1, Ar. Did. fr. phys. 39, 152 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Diels TO 8e 6 elvat o p. 470, (nrepfjta &lt;f&gt;r)a-lv Ttr/vwv Kal /j.e6trjcrtv av6p(07ros Trvevfia p,e9 vypov, ^~v^rj&lt;; pepos (ZTrocnracriAa Kal rov crTrep/iaro? rov rwv rrpoyovwv Kepacrjia Kal rwv fjLtyjjta rfc tyv^s pepwv &lt;rvve\r)\vdo&lt;; e%ov yap

TOV&lt;? ru&gt; 0X0) TOI)? avrovs orav et? \6yovs rovro, a&lt;f)0fj rr/v r* a\\ov TrvevpaTos, /u,e/3o&lt;? "^fX^? rov re Kal 0yj\o&lt;i Kpv(f&gt;dei&gt; (f)Vi Kivovpcvov dvappnri- VTT v eKeivov 7rpo(r\d[j,/3avov del [ft?] TO vypov Kal eg avrov. Theodoret freely copies Euseb. gr. aff. cur. V. 8e o K.tnev&lt;f 6 25, Tt-qvwv TJj&lt;rSe TTJS aipecreo)^ roidSe irepl ^f^ ;? &odeii&gt; TOI)? ot/ceiou? rov yap roi ilvdpwTTLVov dopov vypov elvat rveuuaros T^? ^v^f)&lt;f e&lt;j)r)(rev

re Ka aTrocnracr^a Kal rov riav Trpoyovcov crvrep/iaTO? re Kal e airdvrwv rutv Kfpacrfj,a p.lyp,a T^ ^fv-^rj&lt;t ftopfcv Plut. cohib. 6 &lt;rvva6poicr6ev. , 15, Kalroi (Kaddrrep

e\eye TO cnrep/j-a a-v^^ty/j,a Kal Kepacrfia r&lt;av rfjf 8vva/j,eo)v V7rdp%eiv drrecrrracrp,evov} ovra) K.r.\. ib. V. 4. * a plac. 1, Z^ywi/ (TO o-Trep/na) crwp-a "fyvyj} y p elvat drrofTrraa-p.a. Same in Galen, hist. phil. 31. XIX. .322 K.,cf. Galen, opot iarp. 94 (XIX. 370 K.), (nrepfia ea-rlv o dvdpdiirov fjuedtTjcriv uvOpwrros iieQ* vypov ifrv)(t]S p,epov^ dpTrayfjta Kal crvp,p*typa rov ru&gt;v Trpoyovtav yevovs, olov re avro ijv Kal avro av^/jLi-^Bev dTreKptdi). Diog. VII. 158, J Be o 6 dvdpcaTrov cnrepfia, ^le^tijcrtv livdpwrros, /J&gt;e0 vypov rots Kara (TvyKipvaa-dat (\eyova-tv) T^&lt;? ^f^;^9 pepevt fAiypov rov rwv rrpoyovutv \oyov.

See also Zeller, p. 212, 213. Stein, Psych, n. 252, collects the various points of resemblance between the Stoics and the Hippocratean school of medicine.

o-uXX^Wv : conceptum, cf. Sext. Math. v. 55 foil.

: is So in the &lt;j&gt;vi productive (not intrans.). perhaps

well line: II. VI. &lt;y&lt;? known Horn. 149, dvSpaJv yever), 1} S as re is not fj.ev &lt;pvei t] d7ro\riyei. Otherwise, required THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 153

arose from by the sense, we might suggest that re^uet icara- cf. L. VII. 159, rwv et&lt;? rrjv yrjv &lt;f&gt;verai, Diog. OVK en ftaXXoaei tov cnrep/jidTwv a iraXaLwOevra cj&gt;vTai. irdvra Cleanth. fr. 24, axnrep yap evos TWOS rd peptj K.r.X. Dials re and Usener 4&gt;vTai suggests tcepaa-Oev (frvei

ds after del is perhaps due to dittography.

5. 107. Pint. plac. V. 2, Zrjvcov (T? #7/A,fca&lt;?) V\T)V oiovel diro ev vypav TTpoieaOai, rijs (rvyyvjJ,va&lt;rLa&lt;i iBpwras, The same in hist. c. -SI, ov fjujv (T7rep/jiaTi,K6i&gt;. Galen, phil. a? xix. 322 K., cf. Diog. L. vn. 159, TO Se r/}? ^Xet arovov re eivai icai (cT7re/3/u,a) dyovov aTTO^aivovrai yap oXiyov feed vSaratSes, o5? o Sc^atpo? ^TJCTIV.

v. Diels, p. 418 reads (nreppa

108. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. IX. 133, Zijvav 8e dv Ti? r/pwra XoyoV rov&lt;; deovs evXoyws OVK. av Tt? ei(Ti,v TOI)? 8e /J,r) ovras evX6ya&gt;s TifAwr) apa deoi. Sextus proceeds to describe the forced interpretation Zeno s which and others put upon words in order to get rid of the transparent sophistry 251 (ib. 133136). Theon, Progymn. 12, p. (Spengel, of the existence of the Rhet. gr. p. 126, 16) gives proofs

which is : Se ori /cat rot? So/cet, gods, among e?}&lt; cro^ot? olov YlXdrcovi, Apto-roreXet, Yirjvwvt,.

109. Lactant. de ira Dei c. 11, Antisthenes...unum esse naturalem Deum dixit, quamvis gentes et urbes suos suis Stoicis. habeant . Eadem fere Zeno cum ovv 01 d-rro Cf. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 84 Gomp., TraVre? 6eov ZTJVWVOS, ei Kal ajreXeiTrov TO 8ai[i6viov...ei&gt;a Xeyov- cnv eivai,. 154 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

At first sight these passages are inconsistent with frag. 108, but in reality there is no such difficulty: cf. Athenag. Suppl. c. 6, p. 73, quoted supra on frag. 45. The Stoics strongly opposed the follies of the popular belief, while at the same time they called attention to the germ of truth which it contained, being no doubt anxious to preserve it as a basis for . Zeller well observes, p. 347, of in its full and "Holding that the name God belongs original sense only to the one primary being, they did not hesitate to apply it in a limited and derivative sense to all those objects by means of which the divine power is especially manifested." In testing how far this admission goes, it should be observed that the Stoic in Cic. N. D. n. 45 distinctly denies that the derivative gods are human in shape, cf. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 85 G., dvdpwiroei&el*; etcetvoi ov aXXa tcai /cat yap vofiiov&lt;riv aepa&lt;? Trvevfiara aWepas. For Antisthenes cf. Philod. -rrepl ei)o-e/3. p. 73 G.,

Trap \vTLcr6evei 8 ev fikv ru&gt; (^VCTLKU) Xeyerai TO Kara elvai 8e eva. TroXXoi)? Oeovs, Kara &lt;f)vaiv

110. Cic. N. D. I. 36, Cum vero Hesiodi Oeoyovtav interpretatur, tollit omnino usitatas perceptasque cogniti- ones deorum enim lovem lunonem ; neque neque neque Vestam neque quemquam qui ita appelletur in deorum habet numero sed rebus inanimis atque mutis per quandam significationem haec docet tributa nomina.

Hesiodi : Introd. 31. 0&lt;ryov(av p.

lovem: see on frag. Ill and cf. Flach, Glossen u. Scholien zur Hesiodischen Theogonie, p. 66.

lunonem = air : see cf. D. II. she is infra and Cic. N. 66 ; identified with air as being the wife of luppiter (= aether), and air is regarded as feminine, quod nihil est eo mollius. =air in and P. Similarly "Hprj Empedocles (R. 131). drjp is also one of Plato s derivations, who says the order of THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 155 the letters has been reversed, 71/01?;? 8 dv el Crat. 404 C. \eyoii TO -7-179 "Hpa? ovopa, p.

" Vestam: cf. X. D. II. 67. Wahrscheinlich leitete Zenon ihren Namen von eardvaL ab mid brachte hiermit, im den anspielend auf den Altar der Prytaneum, Stillstand der Erde im Mittelpunkt der Welt in Verbind- 401. ung." Krische, p. This is perhaps the best place to refer to a supposed

6eu&gt;v 8ia- fragment of Zeno contained in Philodem. Trepl

Hercul. vol. VI. Tab. I. 1, &lt;av&gt; 8a &lt;o&gt; 7&&gt;7r;?, Zrjvwv rd eve efcaaTov &lt;TOV Oeov (iTTeipa KaTe%eiv&gt; 8rj &lt;rr/pia&gt;...

el rt&gt; rwv ai(av&lt;u&gt;v&gt; KCU &lt;OVK d&gt;v a-vvaKo&lt;\ov8ei fjir/

ovrai co? ra&gt;? Beds. It a&lt;%t,&gt; ^&gt;ia&lt;(^&gt;9i,a-d^e&lt;vo^&gt; fMe&lt;rd will be seen that so little of the papyrus is legible here 165 that the sense for which it is quoted by Zeller, p. of the n. 5, is entirely due to the imagination editor. Prof. Scott (Fragm. Hercul. p. 181) rightly this as and wonders that Zeller characterises "gibberish,"

should have seriously quoted it : see also Wachsm. Comm. follow the of the I. p. 9 n. If we are to conjectures Naples editor of this work of Philodemus, there are at least three other fragments of Zeno preserved in it. In no place but this, however, does the name of Zeno occur, and, though the doctrines appear to belong to some Stoic, there is no reason whatever for supposing that they originated with Zeno. They will be found at Tab. IV. 7.

c. iv. col. I. c. xi. and col. II. c. xii.

111. Minucius Felix Octav. 19. 10, Idem (Zeno) interpretando lurionem aera lovem caelum Neptunum mare ignem esse Vulcanum et ceteros similiter vulgi deos elementa esse monstrando publicum arguit graviter et revincit errorem.

lovem : it is clear that Zeus was identified with the 150 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

aether or pure fiery essence, of which caelum is here an equivalent, as in Pacuvius ap. Cic. N. D. II. 91, hoc quod memoro nostri caelum Grai perhibent aethera. Cf. Chrysipp. Philod. Be ap. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 79 Gomp.,"H&lt;atcrToi/ Trvp elvai...&ia Be rov aWepa. Diog. L. VII. 147 God is the of all creator of the universe, and, as it were, the father ; his various manifestations are described by different names. Ata oY ov rd rrdvra Be Ka\ovai /lev yap &lt;f&gt;acri Zrjva trap"

O&lt;TOV rov fjv arrto? ecrriv, TJ Bid rov /}i Ke-^(aprjKev Be "Hpav Kara rrjv et? depa Kal "Htfraiarov Kara rrjv et? TO re^vLKov Trvp Kal YlocreiSdova Kara rrjv ei9 TO vypov. The extract from Minuc. Felix lends some slight weight s to Krische theory (p. 398) that the whole of Diogenes description is ultimately derived from Zeno. The same writer thinks that the explanation of the myths of the mutilation of and the binding of Cronos (Cic. N. D. II. 63, 64) belongs to Zeno. ignem. Diogenes rrvp re-^viKov is, according to Krische, a blunder: is elsewhere identified with earthly fire in Pint, de Iside c. for which however (r&gt;}v &lt;f&gt;\6ya 66, see on Cleanth. frag. 23). But see Zeller, p. 359, 1. These explanations were not novelties introduced by the Stoa, except in so far as they were specially adapted to Stoic dogmas. Cf. Sext. Math. ix. 18 (after citing and Prodicus), Kal Bid rovro rov fj.kv dprov ^.Tj^rpav vopicrBijvai rov Be ulvov kiovvcrov ro Be vBwp TIoo eiBwva ro Be Kal ra&gt;v exacrrov. 7rvp"Y[&lt;f)aio-rov ijBrj ev-^prfcrrovvrutv

112. Valer. Probus in Virg. Eel. VI. 31, p. 21, 14 Keil : sunt qui siugulis elementis principia adsignaverunt... Thales Milesius magister eius (Anaximenis) aquam. Hanc quidem Thaletis opinionem ab Hesiodo putant manare

dixerit : eTreira. qui tfroi f*ev Trpwn&ra %ao&lt;? yever , avrdp Nam Zenon Citieus sic interpretatur aquam ^009 ap- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 157

pellatum UTTO rov -^eeaBai, quamquam eandem opinionem ab Homero possumus intellegere quod ait Q/ceavov re 6ewv yevecriv KOA, [AijTepa YrjOvv. This frag, is cited by

Wachsmuth Comm. I. p. 11, who adds "eadem originatio est apud Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. phaen. 8. 125 e. Petav." The lines of Hesiod, Theog. 116 foil, are often quoted, e.g. by Plato, Symp. 178 B, to prove the antiquity of love, and by Ar. Met. I. 4. 1 as an indication that Hesiod recognised both the efficient and the final cause. Aris totle also refers to the passage in Phys. IV. 1 and de Caelo

in. 1. 298 b. 25, and Krische suggests (p. 395) that the application which is put upon it by him in the latter Zeno from with his o\vn place prevented identifying %ao&lt;? Trpwrrj v\ij as might have been expected. Cf. also the anecdote related of Epicurus in Sext. Math. x. 18, 19.

oiiro TOV \tta-6ai. Krische 1. c. remarks that this deri vation is probably referred to in Plat. Cratyl. 402 B where Socrates, after saying that Heraclitus likened all things to a flowing river, and that Homer s line showed that he was of the same opinion, proceeds : ol/j,at 8e KCU

113. Schol. on Apoll. Rhod. I. 498, teal Zijvcov Be TO HcrtoSft) elvai ou Trap %09 vSwp (frrjcriv, avvc^dvovTOS

i\vv yiveaOai, ^9 TTiyyvvfMevrjc; i] yfj a-repe/jLViourat,. rplrov iva TO $6 "Epcora yeyovevai tcaO HcrtoSo^, Trvp TrapacrTijcrr)

Trvpw&ecrTepov yap 7raOo&lt;? "Epw?. This passage shows clearly that Zeno must have re jected or been ignorant of 11. 118 and 119 of the Theog. see Krische, p. 390.

xaos. See on frag. 112 and add Cornut. c. 17, p. 85 eaTL 8e TO Osann, %o? /*ev Trpo r?;? Sio./coo-yu,?;cre&&gt;9 76- OTTO our&)9 vopevov vypov, r^9 ^u&lt;jeo&gt;9 (javo^aa^kvov.

IXvv : similar views with regard to the formation of the 158 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. earth are attributed to Xenophanes. Hippolyt. 1. 14, ravra ore Trdvra TrdXai TOV Be Be fyr)ai yeveffBai eTrr)\(t)drjo-av and to TOTTOV ev TO&gt; 7rr)\y ^rjpavdtjvat /e.r.X., Anaxagoras II. Hence Zeno himself (Zeller, pre-Socratics p. 356). spoke of earth as vTroardd/jLT} TravTw, frag. 114.

: a familiar Find. P. IV. 219 irvpa&gt;86rrtpov comparison. ev tcatofj-evav. Virg. Aen. iv. G8, uritur in- &lt;f&gt;pa&lt;ri felix Dido. Georg. in. 244, in furias ignemque ruunt : amor omnibus idem. Cf. Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, r?8 Be TO epos...evioi irvp TrvpwBes yap r^? 7ri0vpia&lt;&gt;. The authorities give two further Stoic explanations of s Eros with a reference to Hesiod ; (1) Xo^yo? o-7repfj,aTtKos.

c. 6 Be o~vv Cornut. 17, p. 86 Osann, "E/xo? avrols yeyovevai eTrl TO Fire as 77 opfj,r) yevvav. (2) regarded Schol. ad Hes. ra rj &vvafjus: Theog. 120, rpla la eiTTcav TO 8 \eyei TO Trvp ojrep Sat/zoyw Kal Kal evovv &lt;f&gt;r)&lt;ri, avvapno^eiv &lt;yup avvdyeiv On the passage generally cf. Flach, Glossen u. Scholien, to in Schol. p. 37, who attributes Zeno the words the on

1. 115, ex Be TOV vBaTos eyei OVTO Ta o-TOi^eia, yij Acara crvvifyffiv, dr/p KUTO, dvdBoaiv TO Be XeTrro/iepe? TOV aepo? yeyove Trvp, TO, Be oprj KaTa e!;oo~TpaKicrfiov T/?? 7?}?, which appear also in Cornut. c. 17, p. 84 Osann. This is likely enough, but there is no direct evidence. The same remark applies to the derivation of Kpovos from ^po^o?

II. refers other id. p. 44 (cf. Cic. N. D. 64). Flach many definitions to Zeno : a list of some of them will be found those of his which are at p. 48 of his work, but not supported by direct evidence cannot be dealt with here.

114. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 117, Zr/vwv Be 6 ST&KACO&lt;? etc TOV vypov Trjv VTroo~Tddp,riv yrjv yeyevvfja-Qai (f)t](riv, o d Be "Eporra yeyoi evat, Wev eVcryo/ueix)? THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 159

crrtvo?. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 137, vTToo rdBf^rjv 8e rcdvrwv

rrjv yijv, fJ.ecnjv drrdvrwv ovcrav.

Wachsmuth connects this with frag. 113. For the

general sense cf. frag. 52. The word vrcoardB^ri is Platonic (Phaed. 109 c).

115. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 134 Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. r II. bid 482, o /iii]vwv (frr/crl rot)? Tirdvas Travros elpfjcrBai T crrot^ela rov KOO-/AOV. Kotoy yap \eyei rrjv Troior rjra Kara rpOTrr/v AioXiKrjv rov TT Trpos ro K, Kpelov Se ro

j3aai\LKov teal r/yefAovi/cov, "TTrepiova Se rr/v (ivu&gt; KLvrjaiv drru levai. rov vrrepavw eVet 8e (friHTiv e%et rcdvra rd

Triirreiv ro eZSos" /3&lt;ipr] d(f)ie/j,ei&gt;a dvwOev roiovrov \drcerov

iroiOTTjTa, mig. 53. iravTO. TO. pap^. frag. 6/. pdpt] . . . avwOcv . . . so I8os: Flacb, p. 223 after Schoemann. The old reading was Kovcf)a...ava).../jL6pos. Osann suggested iTrreiv for

TriTrreiv. Cf. Cornut. c. 17, p. 91 Osann, ovrws VTTO raiv rra\aiu&gt;v Ia7rero9 p.ev wvofj^dcrOrf 6 \6yos /ca6 ov (pcowrjriKd rd ^wa eyevero Kal 0X09 6 1^0^)0? drrere\ecr6ri, Idfaros rt9 wv id 8e Ka9 ov jroid riva rd yap rj fywvr]. Koto? ovra

ra&gt; K ecrrt ydp 7ro\\a%ov ol "Iw^e? dvrl rov TT ^pwvrat,... Kpto? 8e leaf? ov rd fiev dpx ei Ka ^ Svvao-revei, rwv irpay- jjudrwv rd 8 vrcoreraicraL Kal Svvacrrevrai evrevdev rd^a Kal rov ev TT rot? 7roiyu,i/tot9 Kpiov poo~ay opevo^evov. "Trrep- iwv Be Kaff ov virepdva) rLva erepwv TrepLTropeverat,. See

Flach, Glossen u. Scholien zur Hes. Th. p. 42 foil.

116. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 139, Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. II. 484. Se rjrd\iv KzJ/cX&)7ra?. Zrjvcov (f)vo~iKwrepws rd&lt;? Sto Kal rd eyKVK\iovs (popds elprjcrdai (f&gt;r)o-i ovb^ara rovrcov re Kal e^eOero I^povrrjv "SrepoTrriv "Apyrjv 8e

fyacn rov dpyrjra Kepavvov TratSa? &gt;e (pTjatv rov Ovpavov erreiS)} ndvra ravra rd rcddr) rrepl UK) THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ett...e V( TlVi TOV ovpavov XP P ^" P TOV IK rov 7repi(}&gt;opai Trvpos depos].

: he Flach s arrangement of the text is quite different

V &lt;= O(? after inserts the words ev XP V P tipq&lt;r0eU faia-iv, into See his altering $op&lt;? Trepifopds. interpretation, p. 50. The band of aether which formed the tyKVK\ovs 4&gt;op&lt;is. external stratum of the world revolved in a circle round f I. 14. l TO it. Stob. Eel. , p. 142, 13, aWepiov (&lt;/&gt;^) Trepi- teivetTai. In the matter of the revolving aether &lt;f&gt;epa)&lt;&gt; Zeno followed Aristotle, whose quinta essentia is described II. by Sextus as TO KVKXofoprjriKov &lt;ra)/j,a (Pyrrh. 31). from Aristotle himself approves of the Platonic derivation del Oetv and censures Anaxagoras for referring it to aiOco foil. Caelo I. see also Krische, 306 (de 2) ; p. "immo Bpovr^v T Kcd Zrtpoinv. Wachsmuth says: but Hesiod is the /Bpovrrjv re real arepoTrrjv," surely to below. ridea-Qai is subject to ee#eTo as facri ovo^a father: Isae. II. rcS used regularly of the e.g. 36, e&gt;6&gt;

TratStft) ede/jirjv TO ovopa TO Kii&gt;ov. to Iv \p6vu K.T.X. These words cannot belong Zeno, unless Flach s view of the passage is adopted, as they are inconsistent with the rest of the explanation.

T&lt;OL&gt;5 Se 117. Philod. Trepi euo-e/3. col. 8, opdovs KOI aTTOvSaias Siadeaets &lt;\6y&gt;ov&lt;&gt; Atocr/coupou?. the of From the position of these words in fragments it that Philodemus -rrepl et)a-e$ei a&lt;? appears probable they however 74 belong to Zeno: see on frag. 40. Gomperz p. puts a full stop after Sm^e o-et?. and for the ethical 6 P9ovs Xofovs: see Introd. p. 8, importance of the expression Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, foil. Tusc. iv. brevissime recta p. 259 Cic. 34, ipsa ratio dici potest. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 161

as forms s arc opposed to efei? "permanent nor admittingO neither of increase diminution," Zeller, intellectual are divided into p. 103. Thus goods (1) such as virtues = 8ta#ecret?, (2) a-TrovSaias eei&lt;? pavnicr),

= ovre ovre 8ta#e&lt;rei&lt;?, and (3) e7raiVT(i&lt;; evepyetas efei&lt;?

Stob. Eel. II. 7. e and f, vir. such as $povi[jLevp,a, 5, Diog. in. 98, Cleanth. frag. 51, cf. Sext. Pyrrh. 243, avrr) yap

e/c rcoiva Kal avroOev (fraivofAevrj /i^re rwv epywv avrfjs

T&lt;av For the distinction yap ecrn ravra Kal ISiwrcov. see Wallace on de between eft? and SiddevLS in Aristotle An. n. 5. 417 b. 15. as Aioo-Kovpovs : explained physically by Xenophanes clouds made to shine by their movement (Stob. Eel. I. 24. the cited Sext, 1" See also p. 204, 18). explanations by to be Math. IX. 37. 86 : the latter passage appears Stoic, as recognising the belief in .

Kal 118. Diog. L. VII. 149, Kal ^v pavriKrjv v^ea- eivai Kal Kai rdvai TTuadv (fraa iv, el Kal rrpovoiav avrrjv

reyvrji airo&aivovcn Sid rwas e/3a&lt;ret9, w? ^trfcn Zrjvwv. Stoic definition was as follows: Stob. fjiavriKii. The

II. 7. 5b eivai Se Eel. 12, p. G7, 16, rrjv /AavTiKJjv &lt;j&gt;aa-iv airo dewv OewpijTiKrjv arj/Aeiwv TWV 17 ^aifiovwv the Se dvOpw-TTLvov ftlov a-vvreivovrwv. Substantially same in Sext. Math. IX. 132.

the : in el KCU. Others read 77 /cat, reversing argument to the truth of fact, the Stoics seem to have appealed as a of the existence of God, no less than ^av-riKi] proof in 3 vice versa. See the references Zeller, pp. 175, ; 372, 2 and 3. that it is an art the truth of ri\vt\v. They prove by certain results, cf. Cic. de Divin. I. 23, Quid? quaeris, Carneades, cur haec ita fiant aut qua arte perspici possint ?


Nescire me fateor, evenire autem te ipsum dico videre. That its professors are sometimes deceived does not in validate the title of divination as an art (ib. 24), cf. X. D. ii. 12.


119. Diog. L. vii. 84, TO Be jdtKov fiepos rfc &lt;f&gt;i\o- re (ro&lt;t&gt;ia&lt;; eis rov KOI ei? rov BiatpoiHTiv Trepl 6p/j,ij&lt;; Trepl Kal KCLKWV rorrov Kal rov dyaffwv ei? Trepl Tra0&lt;Sv teal Trepl fcal aperfjs Trepl re\ov&lt;t irepi re rrjs Trpwrtjs rigta? Kal rwv Kal riav Trpdgewv Trepl KadrjKovrwv rrporpo-jrutv re Kal Kal ovrw S 01 (nrorpoirwv VTroSiatpovaiv rrepl ~S.pv&lt;rnnrov Kal Kal rov K.r.X. 6 Ap^eSij/jLov Zijvtova Tap&lt;rea fiev yap Kmei)? Kal 6 ax; Zitjvwv KXedvOifi dv dp^aiorepoi &lt;ieXe&lt;7- repov Trepl rwv Trpay^drwv 8ie\a/3ov. There is a full discussion of this passage in Zeller, p. 223, 1 : its difficulties, however, do not affect Zeno or Cleanthes.

120. L. VII. 6 Diog. 87, BiOTrep Trpduros Zrjvcav ev r&lt;a

re\o&lt;? elire TO Trepl dvffpunrov &lt;f&gt;v&lt;rea)&lt;s o/jLoXoyovpevax; ry earl Kar* (frvcrei tjv, otrep dperijv ffv ayei yap Trpos ravrtjv ?; Lactant. Inst. III. 77/u.a? &lt;f&gt;vcri&lt;;. 7, Zenonis (summum bonum) cum natura congruenter vivere. id. in. 8, audiamus Zenonem nam is vir- igitur ; interdum tutem somniat. Summum, inquit, est bonum cum natura a consentanee vivere. Stob. Eel. u. 7. (J Be , p. 7.5, 11, TO o re\o&lt;f /j,ev Ziijvcov ovra)&lt;f dTreBayxe TO 0/0,0X070 y/ieyw? rovro B ecrn Ka0* eva %ijv \6yov Kal avp^xavov ^r/v, &5v rwv /Lta^o/LteVco? ^wvrwv KaKo&aLpovovvrwv. Plut. Comm. Xot. Kal Zi 23, 1, ov-)(l jvwv rovrovs (scil. Peripatetics) r}Ko\oi/0ij(Tv VTTonOenevois aroi-^ela rrjs evBaifj,ovias rrjv Kal TO Kara (f&gt;v(Tiv ^vaiv. (Cf. Cic. Fin. IV. 72, videsne igitur Zenonem tuum cum Aristone verbis consistere, THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO. 163

re dissidere cum Aristotele et illis re verbis ; consentire, discrepare? ib. v. SS.) Clem. Alex. Strom. II. 21. 129, & 6 p. 496 P., 179 S., 7rd\iv av Zi^vcov fiev ST&KKO? reXo? cf. Fin. IV. hunc r/yeirat TO /car dperfjv tfv, Cic. 14, ipsum Zenonis aiunt esse finem, declarantem illud, quod a to dictum est, convenienter naturae vivere (where see Madv.): ib. ill. 21, suminum...bonum, cjuod cum positum sit in eo, quod ofjio\o^iav Stoici, nos appellemus convenientiam, etc. There is a conflict of testimony here between Diog. and Stob. as to whether Cleanthes added the words rfj to Zeno s definition or found them there (f)va-et already. On the whole the fact that Diogenes quotes from a named book of Zeno s makes his authority the more trust worthy. So AVellmann, 1. c. pp. 446 44S, cf. Krische, 3. adds that s state p. 372, Ueberweg, p. 199, Diog. ment is all the more credible, because Speusippus, Polemo, and Heraclitus had enounced similar principles. does not decide the Hirzel, II. Zeller, p. 22&lt;S, 2, point. the at some and p. 105 112, argues question length decides in favour of Stobaeus, but his arguments are always biassed by the desire to vindicate the originality

of Cleanthes. See also Introd. p. 14.

2 v . xal 121. Pint, fragm. de an. ed. Wyttenb. p. 899,

...01 (17TO from Erkenntnis- This frag, has been taken Stein, we cannot with theorie, p. 271. Although certainty attribute to Zeno a statement, which is only expressed is no reason to belong to 01 (ITTO Tirjvwvos, yet there why he should not have taught this. The soul at birth is only open to the impressions of sensation, and its first impulse Sto. is towards self-preservation. Cf. Pint. Rep. 12, 5,

p. 1038 C, a\X OVT alad rjai^ eariv ot&lt;&gt; /i^Sei aladijTov, 112 164 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ovr olf oixeiov" otVeiWt? fjujBev S) yap oi/eeiWi? cii&lt;rdi)&lt;Ti? rov oitceiov tcai dvri\,ipw elvai.

122. de Porphyr. Abstin. nr. 19, TI)I/ Be TiQtvrai BiKaiocrvvT)^ 01 (ITTO Zr/vwvos. is one of the four 8iK&lt;u&lt;xrvvT) cardinal virtues (see infra. frag. 134) and is founded on oiWWts in the same sense as The dperr) generally. natural impulse of every animal is towards self-preservation, so that it seeks after those things which are Kara and shuns those which are &lt;f&gt;va-iv L. vu. 85 &lt;j&gt;va-iv. Cic. Fin. HI. Trapd Diog. ; 16 ; Alex. do Aphr. an. p. 150, 28 ed. Bruns. ot pev ovv Srtut/cot ov Trainee Be oltcelov elvai TO Xeyovtriv Trpwrov %a&gt;ov avrda GKacnov yap %wov evOvs yevopevov jrpof re avro oifcei- Kal ova-0ai, 8rj ical rov avdpwrrov oi 8e \apieGrepov Sorcovvres avrtav Kal \eyeiv fj,a\\ov SiapOpovv Trept rovSe

&lt;rv&lt;7rao-iv teal &lt;f&gt;aatv Trpot rrjv rr/prja-tv (a/ceiwcrdai evQvs yevopevow; 77^9 rrjv rjpwv avrwv. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 13, p. 1LS, 11 (where the doctrine is attributed to the Peri patetics). For ra Kara see Madv. de rrputra &lt;f&gt;v(riv, Fiiu Exc. iv. and 818 3 " especially p. , Stoici...ita disputabant, ut, quae postea demum, orto subito rationis lumine, quod in infante nondum esset accensum, et animadversa con- stantia convenientiaque naturae, nasceretur voluntas cum natura in consentiendi, qua et virtus et perfectio rationis esset, earn omnino a prima conciliation dirimerent, bonumque constituerent, quod expeteretur, a primis, quae nppeterentur, genere seiunctum."

123. diss. I. 20. Epict. 14, Kairot ai/rd? fuv 6 irpo^- yovpevos rtav \iav ecnlv \6yos &lt;f&gt;i\o(r6&lt;jx0v 0X4709. et 0e\ei&lt;; yvtovai, rd Kal dvayvudt, Zijva)vo&lt;;, o-^ref ri yap eiTrelv on, e%t fjiaKpov reXo? eo-n TO Z-rreaQai 0eois, ovvia B oia Bel dyadov xpfjvis fyavracnwv ; THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO. 165

doctrine": not in the "leading technical sense to be noticed on frag. 169. of girctrftai. Ocois is only another way expressing 6fio\oyia This furnishes an in support -rfj &lt;pva-t. passage argument 1 character o f the view taken in the Introd. p. 4 as to the

s of Zeno (frvcris. Zeno went back to the Socratic doctrine 4&gt;avrao-iwv. it is not to that virtue is knowledge, so that surprising into connection with rind that his epistemology is brought That class of practical morality. particular impressions of some moral which is directed towards the performance in the soul, cf. action gives rise to corresponding op/Mai ovSev &lt;SG. TO Se KIVOVV Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9, p. 17, njv oppfjv rov elvat XX 77 opprjrtKrjv erepov \e&lt;yovaiv fyavraa-iav in the direction KaO^Kovro^ avrodev. Virtue consists proper of with the dictates op6b&lt;s of these opfial in accordance VII. 86 of reason : \6yos: hence Diog. L. says Te^m?? cf. Cleanth. 66. yap OUTO? emylyverat r^ opufa frag. of the assent : The doctiine depends on the freedom supra, h vrao-a? 8e ra? cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9 , &lt;SS, 1, frag. 19, p. ra? Se xal TO KtvrjTi- op^ds (TVjKaradeae^ elvai, Trpa/cri/ca? and see Windelband in Midler s Handbuch, KOV 7repc6X etv, v. 295. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 166, 167, points is often out that the ethical application of fyavraaiai very not unknown mentioned by the younger Stoics, although VII. ware et? in the earlier period, cf. Diog. 48, dtcoa^iav TO? KOI eUaioTTjra Tpe-rreadai TOI)? dyvfivtiffTOV^t e^ovra^;

e 7. (5 8e 124. Stob. Eel. n. , p. 77, 20, r^v r rov rovroV ev&aipovia B e 6 /,r)vo)v wpivaro rporrov Sext. Math. XI. evSaipovia Se eo-Tti/, cw? evpoia /Siou. 30, Kal teal arre- 01 re rrepl rov Y^vwva Kteavdyv XpvaiTnrov VII. M.S. &iov. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 74, Diog. 8o&lt;rav, evpaa ICG THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

M. Aurel. II. 5, v. 9, x. 6. cvSeupovia is not identical with reXo?, which rather consists in TO Tvydv rrjt

125. VII. elvat - Diog. 127, avrdp/cT} dpertjv 7rpo s ev8atfj.oviav, tcadd &lt;f&gt;r)&lt;ri Ztjixav. August, contra Acad. in. 7. clamat 1G, Zenon et tota ilia portions tumultuatur hominem natum ad riihil esse aliud quam honestatem ; suo in se ipsani splendore animos ducere, nullo prorsns oommodo extrinsecus et lenocinante posito quasi mercede ; illam voluptatemque Epicuri solis inter se pecoribus esse communem in ; societatem et quorum hominem et sapi- enteni tendere nefas esse. August, de trin. xin. 5. 8. diximtis ibi quosque posuisse beatam vitam quod maxime delectavit...ut virtus Zenonem. Cic. Fin. v. 79, a

Zenone hoc ex " magnifies tamquam oraculo editur : virtus ad bene vivendum contenta est." Cf. Acad. I. 35 seipsa 7, ; II. 135 Paradox, n. 134, ; This position was borrowed from the Cynics, Introd. p. 19.

126. Cic. Fin. iv. 47, errare Zenonem, qui nulla in re nisi in virtute aut vitio propensionem ne minimi quidem moment! ad summum bonum adipiscendum esse diceret, et, cum ad beatam vitam nullum momentum cetera habe- rent. ad appetitionem tamen rerum esse in iis momenta diceret. ib. iv. Zeno GO, autem quod suam quod propriam speciem habeat cum appe tend urn sit, id soluni bonum appellat, beatam autem vitam earn solam, quae cum virtute degatur. This point constitutes the main gist of Cicero s argu ment against the Stoic virtue in de Fin. iv., viz. that while the Kara are an of irpwra &lt;f&gt;v(riv object desire, they have no weight in the explanation of virtue itself. Madvig points out (1) that Cicero has throughout confused the Stoic priina constitutio, which excludes virtue, with that THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 167

that the of Antiochus which includes it, (2) throughout to the Fourth Book he attributes far more importance themselves did doctrine of otWaxm than the Stoics and that he fails to notice the Stoic (pp. 820, 821), (3)

r(* v Kar "- and distinction between TO rv^^ veiv $vaiv avrwv Ecl. TO rrdvra iroieiv eveica rov rv^iv^v (Stob. c. Cic. Fin. IT. Plut. Sto. 26 ; 22). IT. 7. 76. 13 ; Rep. 6", p. see 278 foil. For the On the subject in general Zeller, p. II. 7. 3 Kara cf. Stob. Ecl. , nature of the -rrpwra &lt;j&gt;ixriv 1 tt 82. 12. The of 80. 9 ; 7 , position 12 ib. 7 , p. p. 47. f.; p. reference to the Zeno will have to be considered with where the same inconsistency appears. 7Tpor)yfj,eva, bracketed some of the ant vitio : these words were by indefensible, but see edd. and are, of course, logically Madv.

maluin, 127. Cic. Tusc. II. 29, Nihil est, inquit (Zeno), nisi quod turpe atque vitiosum est...Numquam qiudquam, vi- doleas necne ad beate quidem inquit (scil. interest), sed est tamen vendum, quod est in una virtute positum, contra naturam, difficile reiciendum. Cur ? Asperum est, diceret durum, ib. V. 27, si Stoicus Zeno perpessu, triste, nihil malum duceret. Cf. ib. qui, nisi quod turpe esset,

II. 15. 6e II. 7. 14, we read dvd\oyoi&gt; In Stob. Ecl. 5", p. 58, and the T v KUKWV rd pev elvai icaicias, rd 8 ov, examples are and This occurs given of the latter class \v-rrri (/&gt;o/3o&lt;&gt;. attributes in the course of a passage which Wachsmuth Just before this, in what is to Zeno, but see on frag. 128. of and xaicd, we find clearly Zeno s classification djadd the cf. L. VII. 103, 7/801/7) classed among dStdtfropa, Diog. statement in the and this agrees with the present passage dolor is classed in that dolor is an drcorrpo-n^^evov. So in the Cic. Fin. III. 51, where Zeno s name appears 168 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

immediate context, and it is to be observed that the corresponding Trporjypevov in that passage is not ^ovr, but " doloris vactiitas." The entire subject of the relation which the emotions bear to the classification of dyaBd and fcatcd is extremely obscure, and the ancient authorities are not only defective but, as we have seen, contradictory. See Introd. p. 46, where this passage should have been referred to. Zeller s account is not clear on this point : at 253 he p. apparently asserts that the emotions are to be classed as Kaicd.

a 128. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 5 , p. 57, 18, ravr elvai

&lt;ov oa-a ovo-ias ^ere^ei, rwv $ ovrwv rd pkv dyaOd. ra 8e tcatcd, rd 8e d8id&lt;f&gt;opa. dyaBd nev rd roiavra &lt;j&gt;pov7)&lt;riv, a-wQpoa-vv-nv, ical 8iKaioa-vvr}v, dv8peiav rrdv o evnv dpert) V 7 OV a Kaicd 8e rd roiavra ^ ^X pT*is d^poa-vi tjv, dtco- \avtav, dbiKiav, 8ei\iav, Kal rrdv o eari reatcia rj ^re^ov KCIKW 8e d8id&lt;f&gt;opa rd roiavra fa^v 6dvarov, 86^ai&gt; aSogiav, TTOVOV i?8ovrjv, rrkovrov rreviav, vovov vyieiav, Kal rd rovroif ofjMia. the same account Substantially appears in Diog. L. vil. 101, 102, where Hecaton, Apollodorus, and Chrysippus are referred to as authorities.

TV 8 ovrwv K.T.X. This classification is attributed by Sext. Math. XL 3, to the Old 4, Academy, the Peripatetics, and the Stoics in common: he quotes from Xenocrates, rrdv TO ov rj dya6ov eo-nv /caicov eariv 77 rj ovre dyadov eariv ovre Kaicov ea-riv. In the same passage he states that the name was d&id&lt;f&gt;opov applied to the third class all three but by schools, probably this is a mistake, as all the other evidence points to Zeno as having been the first to use the word in this special ethical sense. On the other there is hand, not much likelihood in Hirzel s 45 opinion (n. p. n.) that Aristotle was the first to in- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 169

Zeno of troduce the term dSidfopov, and that spoke

K.T.X. cf. 134. &lt;j&gt;p6vT]criv frag. XL fi\\ov Zqwuv, I : cf. Sext, Math. 77, pev v 8 rfp&lt;TTi elvai 8eS6aez/. ib. 184, /ea0o Si ov TT)I/ dpeT^jv dyaOov rives e avroov dya06v e&lt;mv dperrj r\ /cat opi&fievoi &lt;j&gt;a&lt;rtv The of P eT^ 1S TO nerexov dperfc. meaning perex where it is made clear by Diog. L. vii. 94, 95, explained accordance with virtue, and good as including actions in is true of KaKMfi. men : the converse /^re^ov 5. Zeno ccnsuit : cf. Aul. Gell. ix. 5, voluptatem ^SOVTJV bonum malum, esse indifferens, id est neutrum neque neque For the Graeco vocabulo d^Ki^opov appellavit. juod ipse summum attitude of the Stoics towards the Epicurean 450. Heinze, de bonum see Wellmann I.e. pp. 449, without sufficient Stoicorum affectibus p. 37, doubts, Gellius statement is accurate, thinking ground, whether the that Zeno would rather have classed 7)801/7} among irovov Ka/cd. It will be observed that, omitting rjSovr/v, of here mentioned contains a 717)0777- overy pair &lt;^opa in the case of uevov and an d-jroirpo-ny^evov, and that, except the voffov vyieiav (which Wachsm. transposes), -rrpoijyfievov the is mentioned first. We should naturally suppose but which same to be the case with r)8ovrj and 77-01/09, Wachsmuth thinks then is the -jrporjy^evovl evidently since he the words, and at first sight &gt;;Soi/J7, transposes is conclusive. But it should be observed Diog. L. vii. 102 and there that Hecaton is the main authority there cited, one of the on is reason to believe that this was points which the view of the School altered as time went on. to With Zeno and Cleanthes, at least, it seems better the is the and 77801") suppose that 7761/09 -rrpo^^vov, and that is contrasted with 7761/09 dTTO-n-poriyfievov, 77801/1) latter rather than with \inrr}, because the certainly belonged 170 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

to the class of dTTOTrpoTjy/jLeva (frag. 127). For TTOI/O? cf. L. VII. Diog. 172, Adfccovos TO/O? eiirovros on 6 TTOI/O? at dyaOov, Siaxv8ei&lt;; fycriv (K\edv8r}&lt;i) /iaro? el? dyaffoio Te 0/Xoi/ /co?, Zeno, frag. 187, and for 77801/7; cf. Sext. Math. XI. oi Be OTTO 73, r^s o-Toa? dSuufropov (scil. rJSoi/^y eiiW Kal ov Cleanth. (fracriv) 7rporl j/j.voi&gt;. frag. 88. Wachsinuth would continue to Zeno the passage follow this in Stobaeus ing down to p. 59. 3, but the evidence is this. The to against prominence given tcr^t)? fyv-vfis rather to an points origin subsequent in date to Clean thes, and and are \VTTT) 0o/3o5 here classed as /ca/ca, which is inconsistent with not to frag. 127, speak of ijSovr/ in the present fragment.

129. Senec. Epist. 82, 7, Zenon noster hac collec-

" tione utitur : Nullum malum esse gloriosum ; mors autem est mors gloriosa ; ergo non est malum." In the subdivision of the death dSid&lt;f&gt;opa belongs to the d rroTrporjyfj.eva Diog. L. vn. 100; cf. Cic. Fin. III. 29, ut mortem in enim, qui inalis ponit, non potest earn non sic nemo ulla in timere, re potest id, quod malum esse decreverit, non curare idque contemnere.

130. Cic. Acad. I. 36, Cetera autem, etsi nee bona nee mala essent, tarnen alia secundum naturam dicebat alia naturae esse (Zeno), contraria. His ipsis alia inter- iecta et media numerabat. Quae autem secundum natu ram ea sumenda et essent, quadam aestimatione dignanda dicebat, contraque contraria; neutra autem in mediis reliiKjuebat, -in quibus ponebat nihil omnino esse momenti. In this and the following of Cicero it is unsafe to attribute entirely to Zeno the summary of Stoic doctrines there set forth, in the absence of other testimony pointing in the same direction. At the same time there is no THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEN O.

Zcno should not have reason a priori why ^sub-divided rd and into rd Kara fyvviv, (2) rrapd &lt;pv&lt;riv, aB&lt;.d&lt;t&gt;opa (1) = media, or have identified rd (3) rd KaOtiiraZ dBid&lt;f&gt;opa e and rd Kara with \i)irrd or rd d&av Xovra, rrapd &lt;j&gt;v(riv or rd e ovra. Cf. Stob. Eel. Qva-iv with d\rjrrra drra&av x a 7 3. n. 7. 7 , 84, , p. 82, 11; p.

8 aiai/ 131. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1*, p. 84, 21, rv exo tW ra Se eiav. opal Be Kal T /lev t X 6ti/ 7ro\X)i/ af ^ e iv drraiav, a Be r&v dira^Lav e^ovrwv d /lev X 7ro\\r,v ovv rco\\i]v e ovra dgiav -rrpoiiy^eva (3paX elai&gt;. rd ^ev X 5 \eyea6ai, rd Be 7ro\\r)v dira&av d-n-OTrpo^j^eva, Z^i/awo? rot? ra^ra? ra? ovofjiaaia^ depevov -rrpwrov Trpdyfxaa-i. o Trpo-mnevov 8 elvai\eyov&lt;riv, dBtdfapov &lt;ov&gt;K\ey6fJ,0a rov Be eTrl TW Kara -rrpo^ov^evov \6yov. op-oiov \6yov Kal rd Kara rr,v dTTOirpornpevto dvai TrapaSeiyuara Be rwv elvai 10 dva\oylav ravrd. ovBev dya0v irporjyfj.evov avrd e eiv. ro Be Bid TO n]v ^eyia-r^v d%iav X irporjy^evov^ Kal d^iav fyov, ffvveyyi^etv TTW? rf, n}v Bevrepav X u&gt;pav ovBe ev av\fj rwv rrporjy^evwv rwv dya0wv &lt;f&gt;v&lt;ret yap avrov elvat rov jBaaiXea d\\d TOI)? per reraypevovs. 15 ov ra, evBaifioviav nvd crvp- Trporjypeva Be \eyea-0ai Trpos d\\d rw (3d\\eaOai avvepyelv re TT/JO? avrrjv, avayxaiov rd elvai rovrwv rjv eK\oy^v iroieladai -rrapd dTro-rrpoTjypeva. the said that Pint. Sto. Hop. 30, 1. Some of -rrpecrfivrepoc was in as bad a as the sour wine, Zeno s TrpoTjypevov way as wine or : which its owner could not dispose of vinegar is neither an nor an dBid- so the rrporiyp,evov dyaBov


II. 7. 7 10 Ill Stob. Eel. , p. 83, 4. \XV,v ^ovra d^av. in accordance with nature is said every thing which is 105 identifies with d^iav e Xeiv. Diog. L. vil. irporiypeva Sext. Math. XI. 62 with rd Uav^v ra f. Xovra dt-iav, Emp. b II. 7. 7 17. Cicero s Stob. Eel. , 80, d&av fyovra, cf. p. 12 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Acad. i. 37 phrase, (sed quae essent sumenda ex iis alia pluris esse alia is of aestimanda, minoris), doubtful import : see Reid in loc. In Fin. in. 51 we have: quae autem aestimanda eorum in essent, aliis satis esse causae, quamob- rem quibusdam anteponerentur, where Madvig remarks that none of the authorities give examples of those things which are without \rj7rra being Trporjyf^eva. 5. Zijvwvos: apart from the evidence of Stob. and Plut. it is clear that the Trporjy^va must have formed part of Zeno s from the system fact that Aristo expressly dissented from him on this point (Cic. Acad. n. 130), cf. Cic. Fin. in. 51. to According Hirzel p. 418 the word was discarded the later and by Stoics, v Xprja-Ta substituted by Posidonius. 8. : see irporflovptvov Xd-yov on frag. 1 69. TS diroirpo^Y^vo) : so Wachsmuth for TO (iTroTrporjy^evov MSS. Heeren reads roav o&gt;v.

13. ovSi d *v : cf. Cic. Fin. Y P aiXjj in. 52, ut enim, inquit nemo dicit in (Zeno), regia regem ipsum quasi productum esse ad id est enim dignitatem Trporjyuevovsed eos qui in honore ahquo sunt, quorum ordo proxime accedit, ut secundus ad sit, regium principatum, sic in vita non ea, quae primario loco sunt, sed ea, quae secundum locum obtinent, Trporjyfjieva, id est, producta nominentur.

TWV : irpoT^vwv so Madv. ad de Fin. I.e. for MSS. rov he is 7rpoay6fj.i&gt;ov: followed by Wachsmuth. Hirzel n. p. 823 prefei s TrpoyyovfAevwv.

15. rivd : so MSS. rti/t Davies. &gt; &lt;polpd v nva Hense. 1C. TC: Mein. n MSS.

dXXd T&lt;i K.T.X. On the subject of the irpo^^va in general consult Zeller, pp. 278287. This sentence con tains the of gist the Stoic position in the matter. Al sickness does though e.g. not impede the happiness of the wise since he is man, secure in the possession of virtue, it THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 173

ceteris not to is at the same time impossible paribus to sickness, cf. Stob. Eel. 11. 7. 7, p. 79, prefer health 1217.

icra 132. Diow. L. VII. 120, dpea-Kei re avrols VII. . Sext. Math. rd d^ap-ninara, tca0d ^o-fc...Zi)i/wi rov eMSafficov 422. KtlvrevBev oputapevoi 01 irepl Zjvava omnia on ^a earl rd dfiapr^ara. Cic. Mur. 61, the sententiae et praecepta peceata esse paria (among Zenonis Zenonis). Lactant. Inst. III. 23, paria peceata quis probat ? I. 3. 120 foil. Both Cf. Cic. Paradox, in. Hor. Sat. the for this doctrine an Sextus and Diog. give as ground truth to falsehood. As one argument from the relation of true or one false more true thing cannot be more thing its truth or so one false than another in respect of falsity, is the sin cannot be more sinful than another, dp.dpr^p.a as TO rov correlative of Kar6pdo)^a and is denned -rrapd ri ev u&gt; opOov \6yov -rrparro/jievov, 77 7rapa\e\enrrai Stob. Eel. II. 7. 93, lb . KaOiJKOv VTTO \OJIKOV fyov, IP, p.

See further Zeller, p. 2H7.

esse 133. Cic. Mur. 61, oinne delictum scelus nefarium, nee minus delincjuere eum, qui gallum galh- naceum, cum opus non fuerit, quam eum, qui patrem suffocaverit. et This is quoted among the sententiae praecepta the illustration Zenonis, but it is extremely unlikely that in. used is that of Zeno. Cicero attempts (Paradox, 25) doubtless borrowed to answer this objection by the remark, from some Stoic source, that whereas the wrongful killing

of a slave involves a single dfj-dpri^fia, many d/j,aprr/para are committed in the act of parricide.

o djro- 134. Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 1, 2, dperds ZTJVWV 174 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

TrXe/oi/a? Kara Siafapds, &&lt;nr p 6 llXarwr/, olov v V dv&pctav a-axf&gt;poa-vvr) Bixaioa-vi^v, &lt;u 9 d X&lt;pi&lt;TTovs ovo-as, erepa? Be Kal a Bta&lt;f&gt;epov(ra&lt;t XX^ Xwi/. TraXti/ Be peiKXt OVTW eKaar^v, rjv p.ev dvBpeiav fari &lt;f&gt;p6vrj(riv ftvai e i/ Be tvcpyrjrtoK; rr,v Bucaioo-vvrjv fpovrjviv eV mrQVtmrioui ^ ^ L av olo-av dper^v ra?? Se 777)0? rd

Trpuyftara &lt;T at&lt;T L Kara X -rd? evepyela* Sia&peiv SoKovvav. Pint, de Virt. Mor. 2, eW Be K al 7^vwv ^ T0 T6 TTW? ai o vTro&lt;t&gt;ep6&lt;r0 Kme^, tpi&iwo* rjv ^pw^v eV M^ aTro^reo^ BucatwrvvfiV eV Se ^a^ereot? a^poavinjv cv Be VTTo^ereo^ dvSpeiav d-rroXoyovfie^ Be d&ovaiv eV Tourot? T^I/ brurrjftiji, foovrjw iVo roO Zi/i/wi/o? eJi/o- /^acr^at. L. VII. Diog. 101, dpcrd? re ouVc TroXX^? e*V^i; scil. a&gt;? 6 Ansto) 7^vmv. Cic. Acad. I. 38, hie omnis (Zeno) (virtutes) in ratione ponebat...nec ullo modo... (seiungi) posse disserebat, nee virtutis usum modo...sed habitum ipsum per se esse praeclarum, nee tamen virtutem adesse ciuquam (juin ea semper uteretur. Of. ib n 31 Fin. iv. 54.

Cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5*, p. 60, 12, Kal r,}v -rrepi ra Kad^ovra yiveatiaf rr, v Be v^poavv^v -jrepl rd OPtWrov avBp^TTov Be rtjv dvSpeiav Trepl ra 9 tiropovd* rrjv Be SiKaiocrvvrjv T&lt;? Trepl d-Trove^e^. Diog. VII. 126 Zeno that virtue is taught one and indivisible, but that in rent spheres it is manifested in different forms He resumed the Socratic position (for which see Zeller s E. T. 140 and p. foil., especially Xen. Mem. m 9 at. Men. 88 that virtue is c), knowledge, but adopted the of terminology Aristotle by making use of the word tpovw instead of &lt;Wr^, and thus indicated that moral is to be distinguished from intellectual research (cf. Ar. Eth. vi. 13). There is therefore high probability in Zeller s suggestion (p. 258 n.) that had "perhaps already denned 9 as &lt;fr&gt;&lt;^&lt; THE FRAGMENTS OF /ENO. 175

he must have been in Kal tcaKwv." At the same time of the four cardinal fluenced by the Platonic doctrine 441 but he traced the differences in virtues (Rep. p. foil), with which it is virtue to the diversity of the objects as from the concerned, while Plato treated them arising which different mental distinct parts of the soul, produce states. = man his due (dirove- dirovipTjTfois the rendering every Stob. cf. the definition MTin] rfc aia? 6/mo-Tw I.e.), on, TO ni attributed to Simonides in Plat, Rep. i. p. 331 E, aTroSiBovai Biicaiov ecrn. It is more o^ei\.6p,eva e/cc/crTw o-eneral in meaning than Aristotle s TO eV Tat? Siavofj-als BUaiov (Eth. N. v. 2. 12). between with a view Bioiperfow: distinguishing things KCLI with T&lt;? e/c/cX/o-et? to choice : it deals aipe&lt;rei&lt;; (Cleanth.

frag. 70). Hirzel that there xllro^vTois...V6 P^T6ois. suggests I.e. and that we is a lacuna in Pint. Sto. Rep. ought 8e there elvai ev &lt;inrO(J,VTOl,&lt;S r&gt;)v to read &lt;$&gt;povr]a-iv (in of evepyijTeois). a-a)(f&gt;poo-vv7)v cf)povrio-ivev&gt;alpTeots place cf. Eth. ill. G, 6 For vjrofji. Ar. 0, dvBpelos...ov$els yap sense cf. 8uvMV i for the v7ro^ev6TLKu&gt;Tepo^ TWV general av St/catw? Thuc. II. 40. 3, Kpanarot & rrjv ^rv)(i}v Kpideiev teal SKI 01 ra Te Seiva Kai ?/8ea aa^earara yiyvwaKovTes

etc TOJV Ktv8vva&gt;v. ravra pi] d-TroTpeiro^voi has a technical with the o-X o-o-i. This word meaning on the one hand Cic. Stoics, being opposed to Kivrja-is (cf. on the Tusc. iv. 30), and to et&lt;? (non-essential)(essential) k II. 7. 5 1 ). The virtues themselves other (Stob. Eel. , p. 73, 117. are Sia#eo-ei?, for which see on frag.

ouroi, 135. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 3, KOLVW? Se a-rravi^ rov (scil. , Aristo, Zeno, Chrysippus) -rrjv dperrjv SuiQecriv nva Kal T/;? ^y^^? bvvapiv 17G THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

VTTO Se ov&lt;rav fjievr/v \6yov, /iaA,\oi&gt; \6yov avrrjv 6fJ.o\oyov- fievov Ka\ fteftaiov Kal dfie-rd n-rwTOV inroTtOevTai /cat vopi^ovcriv OVK eivat, TO TradrjTiKov KOI aXoyov 8ia(popa rivi Kal rov d\\d TO &lt;f&gt;vcri ^rv^Tjf \oyiKov &iaKercpifj,VOi&gt;, avTo Trjs ^f^ /? H^pos (o Srj Ka\ovai Sidvoiav Kal ijyefjbovi- KOV), SioXov Tpeirop.evov Kal /xer/3aXXoi/ If re rot? Trddecri

Kal Tat&lt;; Kara e%iv rj SidOea-iv /iera/SoXai?, Katciav re Kal Kal ev dpTr)i&gt;, pySev e^eiv aXoyov

t 8e d\oyov, OTav TU&gt; 7r\ovdovTi Tr/s

yevo/j-evw Kal KparjjaavTi TT/JO? TL TWV Trapd TOP alpovvTa \6yov eKcfrepijTaL Kal yap TU trdQos elvai Kal \6yov irovrfpov uKoXaaTov, CK (fravXijs Kal Birjfiap- Kal piaeax; &lt;T&lt;f}o8p6TT]Ta ptoprjv 7rpoa\a/36vTa. b K.T.X. cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 8 }v dpcT^v ", p. 64, 18, apera?

7T\eiov&lt;; (pacrl Kal a^typ/tTTOu? a?r d\\r)\a)v Kal Tas

TU&gt; vTrocrraa iv. aura? yyefj,oviKa) /j.epi TJ-;? "^^179 a^

6p.oXo-yoTjp.tvov : ft*^- 120.

: cf. definition of apcTa-n-TUTov the knowledge in frag. 17. Virtue is knowledge as applied to conduct.

Kal vopiijovo-i K.T.X. This is principally aimed at Plato (see e.g. Rep. 436 A), but partly also at Aristotle, although the latter denies that the soul is pepta-T^ in the Platonic sense (de An. i. 5, 24, but cf. Eth. i. 13, 10). With Zeno the local extension of the soul as a Trvevpa throughout the detract its body does not from unity either on the physical or the moral side : jrdBof and apery are alike affections of

" the yye/j,oviKov : see on frag. 93. The battle between virtue and vice did not resemble a war between two separate powers, as in Plato and Aristotle, but a civil war on in one and the earned same country." Reid on Acad.

I. 38.

&lt; Sidvoiav Kal lovlK v - r ti yH F the distinction between these two terms see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 132, 306.

8id0c&lt;riv: see on 117. ^iv rj frag. The TrdOtj are dis- THE FRAGMEXTS OF ZEXO. 177

neither eet&lt;? nor SiaOeveis but tinguished, being Cic. Tusc. IV. 30. s view of the will be con TU&gt; -n-Xeovd^ovTi. Zeno trddij Eel. sidered in the next following fragments. Cf. Stob. 8e Trdvra rou II. 7. 10, p. 88, 10, elvai irddr) riyepoviKov rrjs

ecrri 8e avro TO Kara 136. l^iog. L. VII. 110, 7r$o? r Kal Kivrjcrts, rj /,rjvo)va r) d\oyos irapd (j)V(riv ^v^rj^ op^i} haec 7r\eovd^ova-a. Cic. Tusc. IV. 11, est igitur Zenonis aversa a definitio ut perturbatio sit, quod TrdOos ille dicit, recta ratione, contra naturam anitni commotio. Quidani brevius, perturbationem esse appetitum vehementiorem. ib. 47, definitio perturbationis, qua i-ecte Zenonem usuin ita enini definit ut sit aversa a ratione puto ; perturbatio contra naturam animi commotio, vel brevius ut pertur batio sit appetitus vehementior. Cf. Cic. Off. I. 136, perturbationes, id est, motus animi nimios rationi non obtemperantes. Stob. Eel. II. 7. ib. 7. 8, 2, p. 44, 4, Trdv TrdOos op/j,r] ir\eovd^ovaa. 10, p. 88, 8 elvai Kal raj Trddos &lt;pacnv vpprjv ir\^ovd^ovaav aTretd!)

&lt;d\o / aipovvTL \6&lt;y(0 rj Kivrjcnv "^v^TJ&lt;f yov&gt; Trapd (pvcriv. Plut. in fragm. utr. anim. an corp. libid. et aegrit. c. VII. in Stob. I.e. . Trepl iraQwv c. I. The comments 10 a 3 are to , p. 89, 90, o, important. They appear belong- to Chrysippus and show that, while defining the TrdOr] as to that word the restricted inter /cpt cret?, he did not give pretation which Galen (see infra, frag. 139) places upon it, in deter and that he recognised the influence of the will mining the nature of emotion. We may also infer that TO) are a ot the words aTreiOrji aipovvn \crya&gt; gloss This is also clear Chrysippus upon Zeno s term 61X0709. where the reason from Galen, Hipp, et Plat. p. 368 K, 338 M, the doctrine of the is given, namely, the desire to enforce


of the soul In unity (frag. 135). maintaining that every 7ra#o? is essentially a\oyov and Zeno Trapd &lt;j&gt;v&lt;riv, goes far Plato beyond and Aristotle, although he has much in common with the Platonic point of view. Thus in the Phaedo 83 B, we read 1} rod eo? d\ijOw &lt;f&gt;i\oa6(j)ov ^vx^j Oirrox? rcav d-rrexerai rjbovtav re Kal e-TriBvfjiiwv teal \wrrwv Kal Kaff tfroficav ocrov Svvarai, although elsewhere Plato admits that certain and pains are allowable (see Zeller s Plato, p. 444). Similarly Aristotle, while classing certain irad^ as a\oya, declares that under certain circum stances wrath and desire are legitimate (Eth. N. in. 1 2426).

137. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1, p. 39, 5, $? $ 6

Zr 7rd0o&lt;; eo-rlv (apio-aTO /vW 0/3/1?) Tr\eovd%ov&lt;ra. ov \e a\\ , eV -rre^vKvla ir\eovd^Lv ^ 77 TrXeoz/aoyiw oixra ov yap Svvdftei, /iXXoi/ 8 evepyeia. wpiaaro 8e /caVetW?

7rddo&lt;{ ea-rl -rrroia ^vx^f, d-rro rfjf rwv imjvwv fopds TO VKIVT)TOV rov TradrjTiKov TTapeiKaaa^. Cf. ib. II. 7. 10, ]). 88, 11, Bio Kal Trda-av Trrolav Trddos elvat &lt;Kal&gt; TrdXiv &lt;-jrdv&gt; -jrddos -moiav. Wachsmuth refers to Galen, de et Chrysipp. ap. Hipp, Plat. plac. iv. 5, 364, 23, Miill. otVeitu? 8e p. TW rwv ira6u&gt;v yevfi d-rro- Sioorat Kal jrroia Kara 77 TO vo-o~o/3r)fj,evov TOVTO Kal fapopevov LK^, where the use of the word d-n-oSiSoTai to Zeno s points authorship. Vo rfc TrapeiKdaas seems to be the comment of merely Didymus, although it is that Zeno possible derived Trrot a from Trereo-fla*. as Wachsmuth thinks.

138. Cic. Acad. I. 38, Zeno omnibus his (perturbati- onibus) quasi morbis voluit carere sapientem...nam et voluntarias perturbationes esse putabat opinionisque iudicio suscipi et omnium perturbationum arbitrabatur matrem esse immoderatam quandam intemperantiam. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 179

144. elvat, rov quasi morbis: see on frag. drradrj aofyov, Diog. vn. 117. what follows this is opinionisque indicia: in view of illustrates Galen s important, and the expression aptly statement that Zeno regarded the rrdOrj as rd vpeva virtue which is con inteinpenoitiam. The particular

is : see on cerned with regulating the op^al aw^poavvr] excess of or rrdOos is Cleanth. frag. 70, so that impulse said to be produced by its opposite, aKokaaia (dyvoia bl Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 alperwv teal favKrwv Kal ov&erepwv, , cf. Tusc. iv. p. 60, 2), 22, Quemadmodum igitur tempe- rantia sedat appetitiones et efficit, nt eae rectae ration!

indicia mentis : sic huic pareant, conservatque considerata inimica intemperantia omnem animi statum inflammat oonturbat incitat : itaque et aegritudines et metus et ex ea. reliquae perturbationes omnes gignuntur

139. Galen. Hippocr. et Plat, plac. v. 1, v. 429 K.,

7^vwv ov ra? Arp/crei? auras d\\a T? avrais crucrroXa? Kal Xutrei? eVapcrei? re Kal [ra?]

7 eivai rd ib. IV. o, V. .^77 K. Ti7? "^^X ?? evbfJii^ev Trddrj, Chrysippus contradicts himself, Zeno, and other Stoics as

this oi ov aura? d\\d to ra? /cp/cret? T?;S" ^rv^s [Kal] r9 tVt rat Tat? rlXoyou? crL/crroXa? Kal TaTretfwcret? Kal S?;^et? eivai ra tVapcrei? re Kal Sta^ucrei? v7ro\afA/3(ivova~iv rr/s

I. adds ibid. IV. ^rvxfl^ -rrdOij. Wachsmuth, Comm. p. 7, 2, ovcriav rwv rradwv on V. p. 367 K., roiavrrjv nvd rrjv (i.e. Kal ai avcrro\al Kal at, Sia- al /ze/wcret? Kal ai errdpcreis

. ..T?/9 d\6yov Bvvd/Aews ecrrt, TraOijaara rais oo^at?

ETTi/coupo?. . .Kal Y^vwv vrro\afij3dvei. Galen views of the nature distinguishes between three different no connection at all with of Trad?), (1) that they have of Plato or Kpiais, which is the view and 122 180 THK FRAGMENTS OF ZFXO.

Posidonius, and in which Galen himself concurs. He infers that Cleanthes was of the same opinion (but see on Cleanth. that are frag. 84) ; (2) they Kpicre^, cf. Diog. L. vn. 111. This is the view of Chrysippus and is in Galen s the worst of the three opinion ; (3) between these two extreme views that of Zeno in identifying them with eTTiyiyvopeva Kpureffiv occupies a middle position. It would seem however that in this respect Galen has done

Chrysippus an injustice : for it is clear from other evidence on (see e.g. frag. 136) that Chrysippus did not confine himself to the view that traBrj are solely an intellectual affection (Zeller, p. 245, 246). At the same it is probably true that he made a distinct advance upon Zeno by with identifying irddr) tcpta-eis and connecting them with

: cf. o-iry/carafleo-et? Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 198, 199.

&lt;rwrroXas. This refers to \inrrj, which is defined as crva-ro\r) 0X0709 (Diog. L. VII. Ill, cf. M. Aurel. II. 10) h or Eel. II. 7. 70 : in d7Ti0)}&lt;; Xoyy (Stob. , p. 90, 14) the same way eirapa-is refers to r/Sovij (Diog. L. VII. 114, Stob. 1. c, 1. 16). Xwrcis. For this word Mliller substitutes Btaxvcreis, but this is perhaps] questionable, cf. Cic. Tusc. ill. 61, ex quo ipsam aegritudinem XVTTTJV Chrysippus [quasi \vffiv id est] sulutionem totius hominis appellatam putat. TS, delet Miiller. Kal is expunged by Zeller, p. 246, and Miiller, but this corr. is no : by means certain see on frag. 143, and cf. Stoicorum de Heinze, Affectibus doctrina, p. 37. 8^ts. Zeller s correction, accepted by Miiller, for 3et is ei&lt;&gt;, made almost certian by Cic. Tusc. iv. 15, ut aegritudo quasi morsum aliquem doloris efficiat, cf. Tusc. ill. 83, cited on frag. 158. In L. vn. this Si&lt;xxvo-is. Diog. 114 word appears |as a subdivision of 77801/7) and is defined as THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

as however j itself is defined In Suidas, col. 818, fiov&gt;] Tusc. iv. 37. It is Sid cf. in Cic. Xo7o9 X v&lt;Tis, deliquescat these words worthy of observation that all (excepting refer to and and that perhaps ra-n-eivaxrei^ \vrrrj rjSovj, are not so For rarrei- Tri0vfiia and &lt;6/3o? prominent. fracta connected vaxreK, cf. exanimatione humili atque demitti with metus in Cic. Tusc. IV. 13, and for Trrwo-ew 37. In the face of the evidence (of aegritudo) ib. 14, in 454, seems to be wrong already cited, Wellmann, p. to and rrrwaeis to be fyei&lt;? supposing Xuo-et? equivalent and eWXto-t? in Diog. and Stob. 11. cc. iv. refers to ap. Galen, 2, (ufao-is \vrrrj, Chrysipp.

p. 367. Kal ov 140. Themist. de An. 90 b, Spengel, II. 197, 24, *o/5? ol drro Ztvuvo? rd rru0r) rfc avBpunrivW elvai Kal \6yov TOV \oyov Siaarpofrls TiQt^voi

. statement In the face of Galen s testimony this Zeno is concerned and be of no importance so far as may discarded.

in. c. v. 322 K., 141. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. 5, p. \Xtt KOI Kal Y^VWV OV (AOVOV XpUO-lTTTTO? K\(iv0^ /cat avrd rideacriv KCU ra? Xu-Tra? TOI&gt;W? (rou? &lt;/&gt;6^ou? ffwi&lt;rra(T0ai). -rravff off a rotavra iraOr] Kara rr,v KapSiav from Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 7. This passage is taken the r the heart because it is Che emotions are placed in of which the Trofy are seat of the fopoviiclv (frag. 100), 213, Stein, Psych, n. 258. affections (frag. 135), Zeller, p.

TWV 7ra6v rd dvwrdrw (ica0a 142. Diog. VII. 140, elvai rerrapa, ev TW rrepl rra6&lt;2v} 761/17

&gt;/3ov, \VTrriv, &lt;j&gt;r e, 8 elvai rro yevei Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10, p. 88, 14, rrpwra 182 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ravra rd reavapa, eTri0vpiav, &lt;j&gt;6/3ov, \virrjv, i}8ovjv, cf. Cic. Off. i. 69, Tusc. in. 24, iv. 11, Jerome Epist. cxxxiii. ilh enim Graeci quae appellant -rrdOr] nos perturbationes possumus dicere, aegritudinem videlicet et gaudium, et spem metum, quorum duo praesentia, duo futura sunt, asserunt extirpari posse de mentibus et nullam fibram vitiorum in radicemque homine omnino residere, meditatione et assidua exercitatione virtutum. Plato had already recognised X^TTT;, faftos, fVttfv/uo and ^801^ as the four chief iraBy, cf. Phaed. 83 cited B, on frag. 136. From rd dvwrarw... yevrj it is obvious that Zeno classed certain under each of the elSrj principal TraOij, but how much of the in exposition Diog. L. vn. Ill 1 16, Stob. Eel. n. b&c 7, 10 is derived from him the evidence does not enable us to determine, nor can we tell whether the doctrine of the evTrdBetai belongs to him.

143. Cic. Tusc. in. 74, 75, Satis dictum esse arbitror aegritudinem esse mali opinionem praesentis, in qua opini- one illud ut insit, aegritudinem suscipere oporteat. Ad- ditur ad hanc definitionem a Zenone recte ut ilia opinio praesentis mali sit recens. Galen de et Hipp, Plat. plac. iv. 7, 6 p. 416, yovv otJro? , 0/309 faalv [Posidonius], 6 TJJS ovv \V7ri}&lt;;, wa-rrep teal d\\oi 7ro\\ol rv -rraOwv VTTO re Zi )va)i&gt;o&lt;&gt; eipqpeiHH fcal Trpos rov ^pval-mrov

avrov. ai&gt; ydp

rov KO.KOV avru&gt; 7rp6o-&lt;f&gt;arov -rrapelvai fan (? &lt;f&gt;a&lt;ri) ev w teal \iiri)v. o-vvropwrepov eviore Xe^oi/Te? tuSe 7rpoa&lt;f&gt;epovraf \v-mj e&lt;rrl S6t;a Trpovfyaros KUKOV Trapov- o-m?. is the XUTTT;? necessary correction of Cornarius, Bake and I. Miiller for the MSS. ar^. The unfortunate which Kuhn s has currency, da-rj^ obtained, has given rise to much perplexity. These passages, and especially that of Cicero, have been THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

the authorities. A difficulty arises strangely neglected by inferred from 139 that here, because it is generally frag. was the treatment of the Trafy by Zeno and Chrysippus and it is that, if Zeno denned radically different, strange as a-wroXr/, he should also \VTT7j, for example, 0X070? Ka/cov have defined it as Sofa Trpoa^aros Trapovcrias. with the latter defini (For the connection of Chrysippus IV. 336 K., 336, 9 M., ev TOI? tion cf. Galen, op. cit. p. TraQwv reXew? rfjs yvmpw opurnols TWV yeviicwv d-Tro^pel

his own rjv \VTTIJV o&gt;6&gt;ei/o? B6%av avrwv [scil. writings] rov Be irpwrSoiclav -rrpoa^arov KCIKOV -jrapovvias (pofiov KdKov TJ}V Be jSovrjv Bogav -rrpoa^arov dya0ov Trapovaias, but at the same time defines etriBvpia as ^1X0709 ope^.} Galen or Posidonius have For, in that case, how could from Zeno treated Chrysippus as diverging by explaining as Posidonius is the the 7ra077 as /e/n o-ew, especially the attribution of the Sofa ultimate authority on whom definition to Zeno rests 1 Now the evidence of Galen establishes almost beyond a doubt that the definitions of XUTTT? as ^0709 cruo-roX?) L. VII. Ill, 114) and of 7780^7) as Xo70? e-rrapar^ (Diog. From this it would seem to were propounded by Zeno. also defined follow as a natural corollary that he eVt0v/ua as aXo o ? VII. and &lt;o/3o? 7 as aXo7o? opefa (Diog. 113), 10 b KK direi0fi Eel. II. 7. , 90, 11, KK\t&lt;TK (Stob. p. \i&lt;nv^ovv eanv cf. Andron. -rraO^v, c. L, XI^TTT; p.ev X67 6D), -rrepl Be aXo 09 Be a\oyos KK\i(7i&lt;s, iiriQv^a 7 o-uo-ToXi &lt;/&gt;o/3o? and see Kreuttner, t?, 77801/17 Be 0X070? eirapw ; 0X070? 6&gt;ef on other it seems probable (see frag. p. 31. On grounds for the substitution of 136) that Chrysippus is responsible

1. but we cannot toll ft) for in Stob. c., aTreitf*}? X67 0X0709 eirl BOKOVVTI and at who added the words &lt;pevKTto e0 perm et Plat. IV. 2, 367), BoKovfrc vTrdpxtiv (Galen, Hipp, p. 114. It remains therefore to which appear also in Diog. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

decide whether the definitions of which o6a .. r ^ r_ KaKov 7rapov&lt;Tta&lt;; is a type were introduced by Zeno or Chrysippus. The latter alternative would be the most satisfactory solution and is generally adopted (e.g. by Wellmann, p. 454, 455, Zeller, pp. 249, 250, Siebeck Geschichte der n. Psychologic, 232, 233 and 504), but if Posidonius evidence is to be accepted in the one case, why is it to be discarded in the other, especially where it tells most strongly himself? cf. against Galen, p. 390 K., (Uwre&ovUK) Treiparai w fiovov eavrov rot? nXareopt/Kofc a\\d KOI TOV a Kme Zrjvwva trpovdyeiv. We must re member that Posidonius was anxious to pick holes in Chrysippus, in order to excuse his own . Hence he charges not Chrysippus merely with divergence from his predecessors but with inconsistency (rrjv avTov -rrpos avrov vavTio\ojiav TOV Xpva-iTnrov, Galen, p. 390). It would seem therefore that he is less worthy of credence as a witness, when he affirms a discrepancy between Zeno and Chrysippus than when he testifies to the of their doctrine. Nor we to m ought neglect the fact that Diog. L. vii. 112 0d/3o9 is defined as KaKov 7rpo&lt;roo Kca, being thus differentiated from the other irdOr,, and that this definition is traceable to ultimately Plato (Protag. 358 D, Lach. If 198s). however we suppose that Zeno made use of a double set of definitions, what was the nature of the contribution made by Chrysippus ? Only two answers seem possible. If Zeno in his oral lectures and (cipw&oi), subsequently to the publication of the work -rraO^v, forward Trepl put the S6a definitions, it would devolve on to Chrysippus reconcile as against the written opponents and the oral tradition of the school. Or again it is quite conceivable that Posidonius may have been misled the by desire of Chrysippus to represent his own as the developments natural out-growth THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 185

case the difference was com of Zeno s system. In any levissimam : hanc differentiam paratively unimportant cum id docuerit, esse quis est quin videat, uterque semper Stoicorum do Affectibus Trddrj esse voluntaria? (Heinze, see also 30, doctrina, p. 10, and pp. 23, 24, 37).

144. Lactant. Inst. in. 23, inter vitia et morbos ad Pentad. misericordiam pouit (Zeno). id. Epist. 38, miseri Zeuo Stoicorum magister, qui virtutem laudat, cordiam... tamquam morbum animi diiudicavit. of the in It is probable that Zeno spoke Trddrj general for the terms as voo-ot and that Chrysippus is responsible as the distinction between vocrrj^ara and appwarrj^a-ra, iv. 23 Cf. Zeller, 251, passage in Cic. Tusc. suggests. p. the same time inorbus 252, and Stein, Psych, n. 2b 7. At which Cicero may here be simply the translation of 7m#o?, iv. For e a subdivision of rejected (Tusc. HI. 7, 10). Xeo?, K II. VII. Stob. Eel. 7. 10 , 92, 12, \v-rrr), cf. Diog. Ill, p. Cic. Tusc. iv. 18.

en Be dvai 145. Diog. VII. 107, 10cS, KaOijicov &lt;$)a&lt;riv olov TO d/co- o TTpaxdev ev\oyov TLV ur^ei aTroXoyia-fioV Kal eVt ra Ka\ &lt;wa Biareivei. \ov6ov ev rfj fafj, oirep &lt;j)vrd Se opdvdai yap Knirl rovrwv KaOrjKOVTa. KarwvopdarOai UTTO TOV KCITO, Ttl/tt? VTTO TtpWTOV TiTIVWVOS TO KCtdrfKOV Cf. ib. 25, Be iJKeiv rr;? Trpoo-coi/o/zacria,? el\r}npevr)&lt;i. (j&gt;acrl Kal Trepl avTov Kal -rrpwTov tcadrjKov a&gt;vo/j,aK.evai, \6yov treatise TOV TreTToiijKevai (referring to the rrepl Ka6r)-

KOVTOS, Introd. p. 29). Be TO Stob. Eel. II. 7. 8, p. 85, 13, opi&rai KaOfjieoV d-rro X.o lav TO aKo\ovdov ev far), o TcpayQkv evXoyov y e%ef TO evavriws. TOVTO Biarelvei Kal et? Trapd TO KadfJKOv Be KtiKelva aKo\ovdcD&lt;; Tri d\oja TWV %wwv, evepyel yap TL Trj OUTCO? d-rro- eVt &lt;Be&gt; TWV \oyiK&lt;*)i&gt; tywv THE FRAGMENTS OF ZKNo.

StSorai" TO dtcoXovffov ev fiiw. Cic. de Fin. III. 58, est autem officiuni ita factum quod est ut eius facti probabili* ratio reddi possit (where see Madv.). xaO^Kov is, according to Zeno, any action for the performance of which a sufficient reason can be given and it is distinct entirely from virtuous action, which is described as tcaropOwpa. That Zeno must have treated of is a which is Karop0a)/j,a supposition rendered necessary the by circumstances of the case, but the evidence to connect him with it is wanting. The doctrine of Ka0jKov is connected with that of closely Trporjy^evov (dK o\ov6o&lt;; 8 ecrn rwv 6 rq&gt; Trepi Trporjy^evwv Trepi rov KaQtitcovros

To-TTOf, Stob. 1. inasmuch as c.) in the ordinary course of life we are forced to our regulate conduct with regard to external which are circumstances, strictly speaking dSta- Hence we must 4&gt;opa. explain Kara rivas where Kara means " over " against (die jenige Pflicht, die von aussen an uns von der herantritt, unterschieden werden soil, die in unserem eigensten Wesen, in der Vernunft selber ihren Ursprung hat), as Hirzel has shown by a com of Enchir. parison Epict. 15, p,envr)ao on OK ev avfnroa-iw Set ere dvacrrpefaatiai. 7T6pi&lt;f)ep6/j,evov yeyove ri Kara ere ; CKrelvas T?}^ a x ip fotr/j.io&gt;&lt;i /ieraXa^e -rrapep-^erat ; M OVTTO) fjxet; eVt tfdrexe. ^ /SaXXe -rroppay rr)v 6pe%iv aXXa 7TpLfj.V, ^ue ^/jis- dv yevTjTcn, Kara ere. ovrw 7rpo&lt;f reicva, ovrta ovrw TT/JO? yvvaiKa, Trpos /3^a?, ovrw 7rp6f Kal -jrork TrXovrov, eo-y dgios rwv 6ea&gt;v &lt;rv/j,7r6rr)&lt;;. Kad^Kov, in Zeno s therefore, system is not a general term of which and Karop0a)fj,ara //.eVa KaO^xovra are subdivisions, but rather and icadrjicovra KaropOwpara are mutually ex so that clusive, the distinctions between del KaB^Kovra and OVK del tcadiJKovra, and pecra Ka0r]icovra and reXeta to tcafytcovra belong later Stoics: see Hirzel, Unter- n. 403410. suchungen, pp. evXoyov does not imply THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 187

as action in accordance with right reason, i.e. virtue, in this sense Zeller and Ueberweg suppose, for reason cannot be attributed to $vra and aXoja tya, which are to the nevertheless capable of KaO^Kovra according narrower sense is authorities. (The use of evXoyo? in this n. from a of Diog. justified by Hirzel, 341, I, comparison ratio non viz. 76. Seneca, de Benef. IV. 33, sequimur qua virtus trahit VII. 130, ev\6ya)s egagetv eavrov qua ; Diog. rov rov If Hirzel s explanation is correct, fiiov &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;6v.) it follows that in Sext, Math. vn. 158, where Karop0(ofj,a is defined as orrep rcpa^dev ev\oyov e^et rrji&gt; drro\o^iav, of as the Arcesilas adopts the Stoic definition KaOfj/cov believes that true basis of KaropOw^a. Wellmann, p. 4(51, to the later Stoics, but surely KaropBtafjia belongs solely virtuous and Zeno must have given some name to action, it is most reasonable to assume that this was KaropOwua. was not the first It is unnecessary to observe that Zeno sense of all that is meant to use icadtJKov in the "duty": technical cf. is that he gave the word its special sense, of Stobaeus from Kard\r)^is. As to the divergence aKokovQov ev is Diogenes we should note (1) that TO fay which is made the main point in the definition, probably between and a mistake, cf. Cic., (2) the distinction /3io? in Thes. 109 fai, for which cf. Arist. ap Ammoii. Steph. earl \oyucr) far; (([noted by Hirzel).

oi 8e Kara 146. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1, p. 3S, 15, Zijvwva al rov ErwiKov rporriKUx; 17^09 eVrt 7^77^} @iov, d$ 779 Kara /xepo? Trpd^eis peovcn. as the The Stoics regarded not so much the act itself For character of the agent (cf. arrovt&gt;aia &L(ideais).

cf. who that a e 7777777 Plat. Leg. 808 c, says young boy rov rrrjyrjv (f&gt;poveiv 188 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

147. Diog. L. VII. 173, Kara Zijvwva KaraXrjTrrov ivai TO

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 50. 34, ol ~ra)iKol rov &lt;ro(j&gt;ov KaraXtjTrrov UTTO rov eioovs reKfj,-r]pio)ou&gt;&lt;;. that it is regrets impossible to distinguish men in this manner. Med. 516 520,

&lt;w Zev, ri or) ^pvo-ov pev 09 Ki/3Sr)\os p

reKfjirjpC dvdpw7roio-iv WTrao-a? crafyr/, 8 dvSpwv orw xpi) rov KCIKOV SietSevai, a ovSeis x PaKT1!P fairtyvice (rca/ian;

cf. 924 foil. Cic. Lael. Hippol. 62. So Shaksp. Macb. i. 4. 11, There s no art to find the mind s construction in the face.

148. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11*- , p. 99, 3, dpeo-Kei 7 p rcS re Zrjvwvt real rot? air avrov Sr&H/cot? &lt;&lt;A.oo-o&lt;of? 8vo yevij

ru&gt;v dvOpwTrwv elvai, TO /j.ev rwv &lt;T7rovoal(av, ro Se rajv

KOI ro ra&gt;v &lt;j&gt;av\wv fiev &lt;r7rovSato)v Sid Travrot rov fiiov 5 ralf ro Se xprjo-dai (iperals, rwv $&gt;av\wv rat? xateiaif b6ev ro del ev fjifv Karop6ovv arcaaiv ol? Trpoo-riderai,, ro ce KCU rov dp,aprdviv. yikv (nrovSaiov rals Trepl rov ftiov ev f47reipiai&lt;; -^pu&gt;p.evov rols Trparroftevois VTT avrov Trdvr ev Troieiv, teal xaOaTrep &lt;t&gt;povl/j.w$ crto^pd/ O)? Kal

10 Kara ra9 d\\a&lt;; rov Be Kara dperdf &lt;f&gt;av\ov rovvavriov

/ra/c&&gt;&lt;?. Kal rov p.ev (nrovSaiov peyav Kal dSpov Kal v*jrij\6v Kal un Svvarat la-^vpov. peyav [lev e&lt;piKvel&lt;T0ai ra)v Kara n ovrwv avrw Kal poaipe&tv TrpoKetp.evu&gt;v dopov ort, earlv Be, rjvgrjfAevo? iravroOev v-^nj\ov B\ on perei-

15 X7&lt;e rov e7rt/3d\\ovro&lt;; Kal vtyovs dvSpi yevvaiw a-o$u&gt;. Kal ori la-^vpov B\ rrjv tVt/SrzXXofcra/ io-%vv Trepnre-

Troitjrai, drfrrrjros u&gt;v Kal o aKaraycavia-rof. Trap" Kal ovre avayKd^erai VTTO Ttro9 ovre dvajKa^ei riva, ovre KtoXverai, ovre ovre VTTO K0)\vei, ftidgerai nvof ovr avro&lt;t 20 /5tafet riva, ovre 8e&lt;r7roei ovre Secnro^eraL, oure KaKOTroiei riva ovr ai ro9 KaKOTroieirai, ovre /ca/cot9 TrenriTrrei &lt;ovr THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ovre ovre a\\ov rroiel KCIICOK rrepnriTrreiv&gt;, egaTrararai ovre ovre \av- Carrara d\\ov, ovre OLa^ev&erai dyvoel evoaifiwv 6dvei eavrov, ovre Ka0o\ov "^eOSo? v-7ro\afj,@dvei Kal /cat 6 /cat 25 8e eo-nv /zaXto-Ta /cai, evrv^^ /-ta/capto? X^to? re /cat /cat /cai a^t&)/xaTt/c6&lt;?, /3aeriXt/co? eua-e/Srjs 0eo(f&gt;i\ri&lt;? rro\iriKos /cat /cat o-rparTjyiKos KOI OIKOVO/JUKOS ^p77/iarr-

1 drravra rovroi? evavria . Se e%etz/. Tt/cos TOI)? &lt;f&gt;av\ovs this extract can It is a matter of doubt how much of as derived from Zeno, but if the be reasonably regarded that source whole of it is to be traced to a single source, may be Zeno, as there is some evidence for connecting the him with the statements appearing at the end of the doctrine of the wise man in general see passage. On Cic. Fin. in. 75, 76. Zeller, p. 268 foil., de 9. TTCVT *5 irouiv: cf. infra frag. 156. Ambrosius, 14 and 15 and Abraham n. 7. 328, 37, cites Gen. xill. hauserunt Stoici continues, hinc tamquam a fonte philo- esse... sui sententiain : omnia sophi dogmatis sapientis unde et Salomon in Proverbiis ait: eius qui fidelis sit totus mundus divitiarum (Prov. XVII. 6). Quanto prior Salomon quam Zenon Stoicorum magister atquc auctor sectae ipsius. can be av - excellence 12. p. v l^hysical only predicated of the term of the wise man, even if in the popular sense for no kind of excellence can be he docs not possess it, inasmuch as the attributed to the &lt;aOXo&lt;?. Further, only TO good is dperrj or fjiere^ov dperfjs, physical advantages found in with virtue. (mly have value when conjunction Cf. the of which 17 ctiJTTTyros. frag. 157, parallelism of some in favour of is perhaps a circumstance weight Zeno s authorship here. see Shilleto on Thuc. I. 19. puberal: for this verb,

2. 1. L. vii. dvn- 20. Setnrotci: cf. Diog. 122, 77 (8ov\eia) THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

rj &&lt;T7roreia ovcra KCL\ &lt;f&gt;ai&gt;\7) avrrj. Stob. Eel. H. 7. IP, p. 104, 5. 23. : because 8ia\j/v8rcu falsehood consists not merely in stating something contrary to fact but in doing so advisedly in order to deceive others Eel. m (Stob. n. 7. ll , Sext. p. Ill, 10; Math. vn. 44, 45). So, on the other hand the &lt;f&gt;av\o&lt;: may speak duties TI but is devoid of

26. K al Similar iwrtp^ 0o&lt;}&gt;. assertions in an amplified form occur in Diog. L. vn. 119.

d|iwnaTiKc$s : this to mean in appears "high rank," see Plut. Mor. 617 D, and cf. the use of dia&gt;pa in Thuc. as applied to Pericles. It can mean hardly "speaking axioms" as when used of Arcesilas in Diog. iv. 31. the pao-iXiKos. Among sententiae et praecepta Zenonis cited Cic. Mur. 61 occurs by solos sapientes esse si servitutem serviant reges. It is extremely probable that this paradox was asserted Zeno by from Diog. L. vn. 122, d\\a Kal /3aat\ea9 rot)? (elvat, tro^ou?) TJ?? a&lt;rtXeta? 0&T779 dvV7TV0VVOV, dpxfc T)Tl&lt;t TTtpi pWOV? (IV T0l)9 K o-o&lt;/&gt;oi)9 o-Tair), a6d ev ^ai Xpvo-nrTros rw Trepi rov tevpiax; tcexp?]a-0ai Zijvwva rot? ovo^a&lt;jiv. Cf/Hor. Sat. I.

3. 1 125, Stob. Eel. ir. 7. II" , p. 108, 26. 27. rT iK6s. vit, P &lt;xTT, Y Pint., Arat. 23, 3, quotes elvai rov as a ao^ov Soypa Zrjvo)vo&lt;f.

149. vil. TrdXiv Diog. 33, eV T^ -jro^ireia Trapivravra jvfova) 7ro\tra9 Kal Kal &lt;j&gt;i\ovs oiKeiovs Kal eXevOepov? TOI)? a-TTovSalovs /JLOVOV. Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 14. 95, p. 703 P, re 6 Zijvtov Srwt/co? rrapd TlXdrwvos 6 253^3, \a/3a&gt;v, Se drro rfjf rot)? ftapfidpov &lt;j&gt;i\oo-o&lt;t&gt;ui&lt;;, dya0ov&lt;; rrdvra? d\\rj\(l)v elvai &lt;f&gt;i\ov&lt;t \eyei. The same in Euseb. P. E. xiii. 13, p. 671.

Introd. p. 29. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 191

how is this iroXiras : the question naturally arises, statement to be connected with the which Zeno in the same treatise advocated (sec frag. 162, iva... KOL Zeno s Trcvras (ivOpw-rrovs ijyw/jLe6a $r)/j,6ra&lt;; TroXtVa?)? but of ideal state is not a community of the wise alone, the all mankind. He seems to be arguing here against which are valueless as ordinary civic distinctions, utterly line drawn between and compared with the broad &lt;ro&lt;/&gt;oi in the ideal state everyone would &lt;f)av\ot. Presumably be so trained in Stoic precepts as to become thereby

Eel. n. 7. II 1 S : cf. L. vii. 124, Stob. ", p. 4&gt;&lt;\ov Diog. which can 138, 15, where friendship is based upon opovoia

Off. I. N. D. I. 121. only be found among the wise. Cic. 56, A full discussion of the subject is given by Zeller, p. 317

foil. This is one of the doctrines borrowed by Zeno from see Introd. 19 it had been the Cynics, p. ; already taught 6. 14 The view is by Socrates (Xen. Mem. n. foil.). Plato in the but rejected as inadequate by (p. 214), no doubt Clement is thinking rather of the and Plato s views : he adds his usual comment that are borrowed from the . 1 Eel. ii. 7. II L. vn. ftcvttpovs. Stob. , p. 101, 18, Diog. the 121, Cic. Parad. v. This again is derived from 322. Cynics : see Zeller, Socrates, p.

150. Cic. Mur. 61, solos sapientes esse, si dis- tortissimi, formosos. This occurs among the "Sententiae Cicero in his banter et praecepta Zenonis" cited by evidence is not against Cato, so that the very trustworthy, 155. a remark which also applies to frags. 152, 153 and The wise man is beautiful because virtue alone is n. to whose beautiful and attractive : Zeller, p. 270 and 4, references add Cic. Fin. in. 75, recte etiam pulcher ap- 192 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

animi enim pellabitur: lineamenta sunt pulcriora quam corporis.

151. Cic. Fin. v. 84, Zeno sapientem non beatum modo sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Cic. Mur. 61, solos sapientes esse, si mendicissimi, divites.

1 For the sense cf. Cic. Paradox, Stob. Eel. II. II vi., 7. , 101, and further references ]). 18, ap. Zeller p. 270, nn. 5 and 6.

152. Cic. Mur. 61, sapientiam gratia nunquam moveri, numquam cuiusquam delicto ignoscere; neminem misericordem esse nisi stultum et levem ; viri non esse neque exorari neque placari. The reasons for this opinion are given by Diog. vn. 123, re e\erjfj,ovd&lt;t prj elvai, (rvyyvrofjiijv re e-^eiv /jujSevi fir) rd&lt;; eic rov yap irapitvai vopov eVt/SaXXoi/o-a? Ko\d&lt;rei&lt;f eVet TO etxeiv teat 6 76 eXeo? avrrj re rj e-meiKeia ovSeveid

&lt;rn /eoXacret? tyvxfjs 777)09 7rpocr7roiovfMevr}&lt;f xPW orrjra prjSe oieaOai (TK\r)porepas avras elvai. The same at in Stob. Eel. n. 7. IT 1 greater , 9 length p. 95, 2596, ; see also Zeller, p. 254. It should be remembered that eXeo? is a subdivision of \VTTIJ (eVi reo BOKOVVTI dvafyw KCIKO- 7ra0eiv Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 , p. 92, 12) and therefore one of the : -rrddr) possibly this is all that is meant by Lactant. Inst. in. 23 (frag. 144).

153. Cic. Mur. 61, sapientem nihil opinari, nullius rei nulla in poenitere, re falli, sententiam mutare num Lact. quam. Inst. III. 4, ergo si neque sciri quidquam ut Socrates potest, docuit, nee opinari oportet, ut Zeuo, tota sublata est. philosophia Cic. Acad. n. 113, sapientem nihil horum opinari... neutrum ante Zenonem magno defensum est. opere August, contra Acad. n. 11, cum THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 193 ab eodem Zcnone accepissent nihil csse turpius quam opinari. The Greek authorities for this fall partly under frag. ovre ovre 148, 1. 22, ovre e^arrardrai e^arrara a\\ov, eavrov ovre tcad- oiatyevoerai ovre djvoei ovre \av6dvei 6\ov V7ro\anpdvei, and the rest may be supplied A/re08o&lt;? m II. 7. ll 8 from Stob. Eel. , p. 112, 1, /irjSev vrro~ka^ftdveiv /cat Bio /cat da-devw d\\d paXkov acr^aXco? @e(3aia&gt;s f^rjoe ovSe 8 VTTO- cogd^eiv rov crotyov... p. 113, 5, peravoelv oe \an,fBdvovGi rov vovv e%ovra. ..ov&e fjiera/3d\\eaOaL ovoe tear ovoeva rporrov ovoe fjierariOecrOai a(f)dX\ecrOai. re rov For Zeno s Diof. VII. 121, eri pr} So^daeiv &lt;ro&lt;j&gt;ov. definition of co%a see on frag. 15.

VII. KOI KOL Sov\ov&lt;$ 154. Diog. 32, e%dpov&lt;; rro\e^Lov^ eivai /cal aXXorptou? \eyeiv avrov (Zr/vwva) d\\ij\(ov KOL re/cvwv teal dBe\- rrdvras TOI)? prj &lt;nrov&a,Lov&lt;s yovels oiiceuov. ^01)9 d&eXty&v, oliceiovs This is the natural antithesis of frag. 149. Even are enemies to their children, if because parents (f&gt;av\oi, love are natural relationship and parental absolutely with On the of dSidffropa as compared dperr). subject consult Hitter and Preller these in general 420 with the notes.

155. Cic. Mur. 61, nos autem, qui sapientes 11011 insanos esse. sumus, fugitives, cxules, hostes, denique But for the sake of uniformity this might have been that we have omitted, as we can feel very little confidence here the actual words of Zeno. For exules cf. Stob. Eel. 1 rrdvra II. II &e ical &lt;$&gt;av\ov 7. , p. 103, 9, \eyovo-L (frwydoa vroXireta? Kara eivai, K,a& oaov areperai VOJMOV /cal

eo-riV ori 156. Athen. IV. 158 B, ^rwi/cov oe Soypa


ev jrouja-ei 6 ero^o? ical ^UK^V rejrdvra &lt;f&gt;poviftax; dprv&lt;ref Sio teal

l [Zrjvwveiov] ye &lt;a/o&gt; tyciv 09

c9 OVK a\X9 8vva/j,evr)&lt;; Kara rr)V Zrjvcoveiov v&lt;f&gt;r/&lt;yr)(Tiv 09 (J&gt;TJ et? Be fyaKrjv e/i/3a\Xe SvaSeKarov Kopidvvov. on TC KT.X. This follows from the doctrine that all virtue is wisdom : (&lt;j&gt;p6vr)(rvi) since is &lt;j&gt;p6vr)o-is required in the of a K rJ, the preparation (f&gt;a wise man can alone prepare it properly. This applies even if the wise man has no in the experience particular practical task under consideration, because he alone possesses the necessary cf. capacity, frag. 148, 1. 9. Diog. L. vn. 125, -rrav-ra re ev Troidv rov ao&lt;j&gt;6v, 609 real -rrdvra (frapev TU av\ijfj.ara ev av\elv rov 1 07*77 which furnishes Wai/, a close parallel to Hor. Sat. 1. 3. 126 non nosti foil., quid pater/ inquit, dicat: Chrysippus sapiens crepidas sibi numquam nee soleas sutor tamen est fecit, sapiens. qui 1 ut quamvis tacet Hermogenes, cantor tamen atque optimus est modu bl lator etc. Cf. also Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5 , p. 66, 14 foil.

157. Philo, liber virtuti quis studet, p. 880, agiov TO Zyvwveiov e7ri(f)o)vrjo-ai OTI ddrrov av do-Kov ^aTrrio-a^

TrXypr) Trvevfj-aTos rj fiidvaio rov (nrovSalov ovnvovv afcovra n r&v Spdaai d/3ov\i]ra)V dvevSoro? yap teal drjvarjros v i/ry^,} }} op0o&lt;t \6yos 007/400-4 -rrayio^ e- vevpwae.

pa-n-r(&lt;rais . . . So piao-aio. Mangey, followed by Wach- for the smuth, MSS. /3a7rrio-ai.../3id(7aiTo. The same editor the alternative suggests of inserting res, which is less probable.

: for the PICXO-CUO freedom of the wise man s will cf. Cic. Tusc. iv. 12, eiusmodi appetitionem Stoici THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 195

voluntatem. Earn illi in appellant, nos appellamus putant solo essc sic definiunt : voluntas est, sapiente ; quam quae and sec Erkeuntnis- quid cum rationc desiderat, Stein, theorie, p. 196. S on dv v8oTos : cf. supra frag. 14-8, l(r%vpov (rov &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;6v) tav real rt}v e7ri/3fi\\ou(Tav lo")(yv TreptTreTroiijTai d^rrrjrof d/caraywvia-ros. M. Aurel. I. 10 fin. 9. : see Introd. pp. 8,

158. Seneca, de Ira, I. 16, 7, Nam, ut dixit Zeno, in vulnus sit sapientis quoque animo etiam qimm sanatum cicatrix manet. Sentiet itaque suspiciones quasdam et umbras affectimm, ipsis quidem carebit. This is a concession to popular feeling, although at the same time the absolute djrdOeia (Diog. L. vii. 117, Cic. Acad. I. 38) of the wise man is maintained. It would be a mistake to infer from this passage that Zeno is of evirdOeiai. Further re responsible for the doctrine 291. Cf. ferences are given by Zeller, p. Diog. vn. 118, rrpoarreo-eicrdai fiivroi rrore avrm ^avraa-ia^ aXXo/corou?, where however the Bid /j,e\ayxo\lav rj Xrjprjaiv K.T.\., that de point is rather different, Remembering Zeno scribed the effect of grief as S^et?, we may compare Socrates description of the result of violent love in Xen. Symp. IV. 28, wajrep VTTO Bijplou TWOS SeS^y^evo i rov rrivre u&gt;$aov real ev re u)p.ov rr\elov rj -qf^epa^ rfj KapSia eSo/covv Cic. Tusc. III. hoc warrep Kvrjcr/j,d ri e^eiv. 83, detracto, qnod totum est voluntarium, aegritudo erit sublata ilia maerens, morsus tamen et contractiuncula quaedam animi relinquetur. The best account of the to is sensibility of the wise man pain given by Heinze, Stoicorum de aff. doctr. pp. 14, 15. The wise man can not resist the impact of the fyavracria, but will refuse See further on Cleanth. frag. 94. 132 196 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

159. Seneca, Epist. 83. 8, Ebrio secretum sermonem

committit : : nemo viro autem bono committit ergo vir bonus ebrius non erit. Seneca finds no in difficulty refuting this fallacy, in spite of the defence which he quotes from Posidonius. For the syllogistic form of the argument see Introd. 33. Von p. Arnim, Quellen Studien p. 104, has pointed out the in Philo de original Plantatione Noe p. 350, el T&&gt; OVK dv rt? ftedvovTl ev\6yu&gt;s \6yov aTropprjrov TrapaKard-

6oi.ro &lt;rw Be crotyto rrapaKararidevrai&gt; OVK dpa daretos. ebrius non erit: cf. Diog. L. YII. 118, Kal ol

ov Be. Stob. II. fiev (rov &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;6v), ^QvaQr^ecrQai Eel. 7, m ll olov Be , p. 109, 5, ov% fjieOvaBtja-eadai rov vovv e-yovra rtjv yap p,e6i]v n^apTrjTLKov 7repi%eiv, XrjpTja-tv etvai rov olvov, ev Be rov airovBalov &lt;&gt;yap&gt; Trapd /j,r)Bevi dpap- rdveiv /c.r.\. Similarly Socrates in Xen. Symp. II. 26. The on Peripatetics held, the contrary, according to that the wise man Stobaeus, fiedva-Otjaea-dat Kara o-v/j,-

tcdv el II. 7. 7repi&lt;f&gt;opds, fj,rj 7rporjyovfj.eva)&lt;f (Eel. 24, p. 144, 10).

160. Plut. de in prof, virt. 12, opa BJ] KCU TO rov OTTOIOV ear iv rf^iov yap a-Tro rcav oveiptav exaarov eavrov crvvaiaOdveadai, TrpoKOTrrovros, el pyre r/Bo^evov nvi eavrov rt aiV^pcG /Mijre Trpoa-te^evov rj Trpdrrovra rdov Beivwv Kal dBiKutv opa Kara TOI)? VTTVOVS aXX olov ev /3v0(a TO Kal vrro rov &lt;J&gt;avraariKov TradrjrtKOv \6yov BiaKe%v-

etiri TWV : it was a dvcpa&gt;v popular Greek notion that the vision of the s mind eye is clearer in sleep. Aesch. Eum. 104. Pind. frag. 108 [96], Fennell.

: Wellmanii p. 462 argues that Zeno, while THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 197

of virtue, maintaining to the full the possibility acquiring non-existence of wise men or did not admit the practical between ol and ol the consequent distinction TrpoKo-rrrovT^ have aTTovSalot: these latter views, he thinks, may On in general see originated with Chrysippus. -rrpoKOTrr} foil. Zeller, p. 293 Dem. Timocr. 156). orpoo-^uvov, "approving" (cf. the words Sewoi; StW point to acquisiti. aicrxpv ^ ^ and of the three leading virtues aw^poavvi] dvBpeia

. are reaso d\X otov K.T.X. The emotions dispersed by which remains clear and in the mind of the irpoKo-rrruv, ocean on a calm when unsullied, like the transparent day

: cf. Cleanth. sand settle down to the bottom shingle and frag. 66. has no reality but is merely 4,avTao-6v, objective a* ovBevo, fyavraa- Sidtcevos auwr/409, 7r0o ? h rfj ^vXfl that it is IV. 12). Observe rov y tV 6fie VOV (Pint. plac. Erkenntiiistheorie, 156, n. described as a 7r0o9. Stein, p. 309.

si convivere etiam 161. Seneca, Epist. 104,. 21, quod cum Zenone versare : alter Graecis juvat [cum , necesse erit : te docebit mori, si necesse alter, antequam

. erit. . , Suicide is antequam necesse erit. (e^yrj) justinabl to re under certain circumstances. It is important to the class of the member that life and death belong therefore has no connection with ahdfopa, arid suicide as a matter of but is to be regarded peT77, merely TO K Kovai xal rok -rrapcl KaO^ov K00VJKOV (roZ? Be a9rj 8tob

m 13 and see on 145). Eel. n. 7. ll p. HO, frag. Zeller 338. point is emphasised by p. 198 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

162. Plut. Alex. virt. 6, Kal rfv 7} TroXireia rov rr)v ZraHKuv aipeaiv Karaj3aXo}j.evov Zij 9 ev rovro vvvreivti, tva Ke&lt;f&gt;dXaiov pr) Kara TroXeis Kara Sr/povs oixunev, iSiot&lt;: eKaa-roi Buopitrpevot Biicaiois, dXXd irdvra* dvOptoirow ijywfteOa Srjporas teal jroXlra?, efc Be Kal /3/0? 77 /coo-^09, wcnrep tiyekri? vvvvopov vopw KOIVW ovrrpefofibiji. rovro Zjvwv fuv eypa^ev &&lt;nrep ovap f, etBtoXov a? evvom &lt;^tXo&lt;7o0ou Kal -rroXireia* ava-

: id. de Sto. n. 1, eVet rotvvv 7ro\\d Tyir&lt;a&lt;rditevo? Rep. ^ev, w? ev \6yois aura Zrjwovi...yeypafAf^a rvyxdvet -rrepl TToXiTeuL? Kal rod apxe^ai Kal apXeiv Kal Bixd&iv Kal

Horn. I. in faropevetv. Chrysost. Matth. 4, ov yap nXdrtOif 6 rrjv Karaye\aa-rov KLi&gt;r)v 7ro\ireiav Kai Kal ei Zijvav rt&lt;? -rroXireiav ere/Do? eypa^rev 77 crvvedrjicev.

Trdvras : see dv9pa5-rrovs on frag. 149. The idea of cos was mopolitanism largely developed by the later Stoics, especially Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. Zeno s disregard of the fundamental distinction between and bar barians may partly be due to the influence of his birth place, as Zeller remarks, but at the same time he only carries out Cynic teaching (Diog. L. vi. 72, tfvrjv re opffjvvtfiuTclav elvai ev r^v xofffito). As to Socrates, see Zeller s Socrates p. 167 n. 8, R. and P. 219.

SxrTTtp dY&Tjs rvw6p.ov. As Zeno is generally admitted to have written the woXtreia when he was still under the influence of the school, Zeller Cynic (Socrates p. 325) treats this as passage being typical of Cynicism, and that in suggests Plato, the Politicus (267 D, OVKOVV rmv

VO/UVTUC&V riii.lv iro\\v &lt;j&gt;aveia-(av dpri re^vaJi/ /zta rt? v}v 1} -rroXiriKT) Kal //t29 rivos dyeXijs etripeXeia ; K.r.X.) and in his description of the vv TroXt? in 372 A. Rep. foil, is referring to Antisthenes. The reference is however extremely doubtful and it is (see Ueberweg p. 93), worth noticing THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 199

of a state to a herdsman that the comparison of the ruler enre was a favourite one with Socrates. Xen. Mem. I. 2, 32, oi elvai, em? TTOV 6 Sw/eprtTT/? on dav/^acrrov BoKolf} ical T* /Sot* eXdrrovs re ytvo^evos fiouv dye\^ volets /ca/co? elvai en real xeipovs TTOLUV ^ SfioXoyoir) @OVKO\O&lt;; ei rt? yevopevo*; TroXew* 8e 6avna&lt;TTOTepov Trpoa-rdr^ also cf. Plat. 516 A. See Newman, K.T.X., with which Gorg. Politics of Aristotle, vol. I. p. 30.

8e 163. Athen. XIII. 561 C, Hovrtavbs Zrjvcova fyr] debv elvai rov "Epeora &lt;j&gt;t\ia&lt;&gt; TGI&gt; Kmea viro\a^dveiv en Be xal o^ovoia^ TrapaffKevacrnKOV, teal e\ev6epia&lt;; " rov ev r&gt; 7ro\irela "Epwra d\\ov 8 ovSevos. Sto Ka\ } tyr] rr,v 7roXea&gt;9 6ebv elvai, ^irap^ovra vrpo? r^ &lt;rvvepy6v was Plut. vit. 31. Lycurgus object wrnpiav." Lycurg. \V evfc not to leave with a large empire, ucrjrep TT KOI TToXeco? 0X7?^ vo/xtfwy euBatfMViav dvSpos /3io) KCLL opovoias TJJ? Trpo? Trpo? aperr/9 eyyive&lt;r0ai ayr^i/, teal o-wera^e /cat vvviip^oaev, OTT&)? e\ev6epioi eVl 7rXet(7TO^ yevo^evoi /cat (raxjipovovvTe? xpowv ra)^ HoXtre^o? v-rr6- t. rauTT,!; *al nXa eXa^e r^ : K.T.\. ical Ai07e i^779 /cat Zr/vwv as an Love is in Hesiod to be regarded TOV "Epc-ra. In the ideal of fire, frag. 113. allegorical presentment because all state Love is taken as a presiding deity, to be banished from it, and the discord and party strife are be united friend wise men, who are its citizens, are to by eV Cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 108, 15, ship and concord. ll^p. (uro\elirov&lt;ri, eVel ev re TO?? &lt;j&gt;t\iav, fiovois o-oc/&gt;(H9 povoi^ rwv /card TOV rrjv 8 TOVTOLS opovoia yiverai -rrepl fiiov^ KOIVWV eVto-r^z/. o^ovoiav elvai dya9wv Chrysipp.^ap. elvat col. 12, 79, ical n]v avnjv Philod. -rrepl etVe/3. p. Gomp., /cat /cat Kal E^vvo^lav teal MK^V /cat Opovotav Elpr/vyv It is that /cat TO 7rapa7r\i]aiov irav. probable THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Zeno took the same objection, that of want of unity, to as Republic is taken Aristotle Pol. by n. 5, p. t a 24, CV ^d -rr6\ei Svo yap 7roXe&lt;9 dvayxalov elvai .aiTavrav virevavrfa a\\^\a^. Cf. also ib. n. 4 1262 ) 7, Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 16, and contrast Ar. Pol n 9 b.10. Hirzel, n. finds p. 36, here a divergence from ithenes, comparing Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 485 P but he apparently forgets Diog. L. vi. 12, which shows that the if it onsistency, exists, is with Antistheues himself.

164. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12, 76, p. 691 P 249 S ec 8e Kal 6 Zjvmv, r^ 2*^ Krlar^ atpeae TV T^ iroXereiW frfftip wre vaoh Selv iroulv ayaXf.ara- M v yap elvcu TUV Oc&v a&ov ev atrak \e^at rdSe iepd re oi - b TroXXot ep yap rf ci&ov, Ka l aylOV

,, ovSw 8e TroXXov a&ov Ka l l t pava awv . The same in s. I. 5, p. 324. Plut. Sto. Rep. vi. 1, e r, S6ya Z eo-Tiv tepa Oeuv rf olxoSofielv ieptv yap rf Tr afiop Kal aylOV ovK $mv - oiicoMpuv 6 epyov Kal fravav- ou&v e o-ri 7ro\X riglov . Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur. III. 780 = p. p. 49, ravra 45, vvvopuv Kal Zjvtov 6 K cS r^ HoXcre^ d-rrayopevec frfofo Kal vaov, Kal dydXftara racraiw ov^ elvac Oew yap fifa Kara^evaa^a. Epiphan Haeres. m. 36, Z me 6 i pd. The Cynics also deny the of sanctity temples: Diog. VI. 73, fa re M dro-rrov lvai l {) ^ ^ po Tl Xafclv. in some language particulars recalls St Paul s to the Acts Athenians, xvn. 24, 6 0e3 ? 6 Tro^a, rov Koap.ov Ka l -jrdvra rd ev 0^x09 K aCry, ovpavov Kal yfc lp&lt;09 OVK eV mrdpxuv etoTrorot? vaol?vaol icaroiicelic THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 201

Floril. Belv ra? 165. Stob. 43, 88, Zqvwv e&lt;f&gt;r) rwv OIKOVVTWV OVK dvadyjfjiaa-iv d\\d rat? aperat?. to honour Hermes In a similar spirit Crates promised and the ov SaTrdvais rpvfapals XV perat? oaiais Socrates 329 n. ( Or. vi. 200 A, quoted by Zeller, p. 1).

166. Diog. L. VII. 33, nal Kara TOI)&lt;? tepd /x?;re

were cited to Karci...crTixovs. Prose writings according ev the number of lines, cf. Diog. L. vn. 187, (Chrysippus)

TW jrepl TWV dp^aiwv (f)vcrio\6jcoi avyypdf^^arL \eywv Dion. Hal. de Thuc. hist. Kara rou? e^aKoatov^ o-Tt^ow?. jud. c. 19, Trpooifiiov T//9 to-Topias

uberall : "wozu Gerichtshofe, wo Gerechtigkeit und Gewandt- waltet? wozu Gymnasien, wenn Korperkraft " reference heit ohne Wert sind ? Wellmann p. 438. The of Plutarch to yvpvda-La confirms the statement (Sto.

Plato s : with Rep. 8, 2) that Zeno wrote against Republic element in the Plato jvfjivaa-TLKrj forms an important 410 training of the 0i Xa/ce9 (Rep. ill. p. 411).

vroXXoi? 167. Diog. VII. 32, evioi ^evroi...ev d- TUV Zijvwvos rijv eyKVK\iov iraiBeiav

ev T57 9 TroXtreiav. a7ro&lt;palveiv \eyovaLV dpXTI r course of Greek educa ^KVK\ imiStCa. J"he ordinary tion comprised the three branches of ypn/i/iara, ^ovaiio], s E. T. 231 and yv/jivaa-TLKrj (Becker Charicles p. foil.). Zeno intended to imply, probably again in opposition of virtue to Plato, that, as compared with the acquisition or true wisdom, the wisdom which education proposes Such at to supply is worthless (cf. Wellmann p. 437, 8). least seems to be the ground on which the Cynics put re forward a similar opinion, Diog. L. VI. 11, rriv dperrjv 202 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. ru&gt;v epywv elvai, pr/re \6ywv rr\eiovwv HaQripdrwv. 73, re teal /iot/o-t/a;&lt;? yewp,erpiK^ Kal dvrpo- Kal rwv roiovratv Xoyias dpeXeiv &$v d-^prja-rwv Kal OVK dvayxaitav. 103, Be Kal Trapatrovvrai rd eyKVKXia p.a6r)- p.ara. ypdp,p.ara yovv fjn] pavQaveiv efaaKev 6 Ai^Tto-- tfeV?;? TOI)? iva adxppovas yevopevovs, ^ Siaa-rpe^oivro rot? d\\orp{oi?. Epicurus agreed with Zeno on this Prof. on Cic. point (see Mayor N. D. i. 72), while Aristotle considered that rd ey^/cXm ^aS^ara are useful for the of virtue acquisition (Diog. L. v. 31). It is important to observe that held Chrysippus ev^p^a-rdv rd eyKvK\ia bn fiaO^ara (Diog. L. VII. 129, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 5 7, , p. 67, 5), and it is that Zeno possible may at a later period of his life have modified his conclusion on this point, just as he from diverged the Cynics in recommending Dialectic and Physics as well as Ethics, Zeller p. 63, 3, Hirzel n. p. 523, cf. 4, Cleanth frag. 106.

168. VII. Diog. 33, rrepi re i/o/i/oytaro? ourco? ypdfaiv o/uoyia 8 OUT d\\ay^ evexev oleaQai 8eiv iv ovr drro&rjfMias eveicev. in the "Diogenes 7ro\ireia proposed a coinage of bones or stones (darpdyaXoi) instead of gold and silver,

Athen. iv. 159 E." Zeller, Socrates, p. 325 n. KVCKCV. This dXXa-^s again is pointed at Plato Rep. II. 371 B, Kal dyopd STJ rj^lv vopiapa gvpfioXov r^? d\\aytjs i&gt;6Ka yevrja-erai e /c rovrov. Aristotle s statement is more exact, that explaining money is a security with a view to future exchange: vrrep r/;&lt;? fie\\ova^ dXXayrjs, el vvv pijSev Seirai, ore carat edv Ser)6f), TO vo/j,t(T^a olov ey- yvTirrjs e o-0 Eth. v. 5. 14. Cf. ftp.lv. especially Ar. Pol. I. 9. 1257 a 32 foil, and Newman on ib. 1257 b 11.

169. Athen. vi. 233 B, C, Z^tyi/ 8e 6 drro r THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 203

rov avrols irdvra rd\\a 7T\&gt;}v vo^i^w (i.e. gold cra? rrjv and silver) KOA, /caA.w? xp)ja-0ai ^o/u dBidfopa, Se al avrvv /cat d-jrenrcov, ri]v %p?)(nv rwv pea-iv ^&gt;vyriv Troielo-dai /cat aTrepiTTWV TrpoT/yovpevw^ TrpoardcratoV raXXa StdOeaiv rfjs OTTO)? rtSef; /cat, dOav^aa-Tov Trpos rr/v ova Ka\d ecrrt yfrvx^ e%ovre? ol avQpwiroi, /jujre ^re Kara w? eVi vroXi) rwv 8 alcrxpd, rot? fJ-ev ^iaiv xputvrai, SeSot/core? /cat TOVTWV eva.vri.wv prjSev o\w? Xtxyw ^?) ^&gt;6/3&)

with to bear The opinions professed regard money 171 bears to the same relation to the last frag, as frag. another illustration frao-. 176. This passage affords good those of the doctrine of the Kad^Kovra as applied to thino-s which are morally indifferent. The aTrouSato?, or desire and who is unaffected either by fear (d^aO^}, directed reason, will whose appal are properly by right rd tcard and ra know how to discriminate between $&gt;vaiv so as to to the former and avoid the -napd &lt;j&gt;vo-iv, cling L. VII. latter. Thus TrXoOro? is a -rrporjy/jievov (Diog. 106), as of for life in and possesses value being advantage while accordance with nature (ib. 105), 77 6p9^ xpv&lt;ri&lt;; TT\OVTOV which is characteristic of the &lt;nrovSaio$ is sharply Eel. II. 7. 10 from the (Stob. , distinguished &lt;f&gt;i\OTr\ovTia of the p. 91; 18) (f)av\os. and adopted by a\:P o-iv: suggested by Schweighauser After 8e Kaibcl for the MSS. dpx iv. TJ]V w^viv Schweig. had fallen out such as rrjv thought some words opBriv et a. Stairav. XITV. Cf. M. Aurel. I. 3, TO \LTOV Kara rr,v in of MSS -rrepiTrwv. direptTTwv. So Casaubon place Contrast M. Aurel. v. 5 with id. IX. 32. In Sext. with upo^ovH^s. This word is difficult. Emp., it means whom it occurs at least eight times, always first often or "in the place," being opposed "principally" 204 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

to drco\ov0a)s. cf. = 7rpor)yov/j,vo&lt;? \6yos frag. 123 leading doctrine. Here however it seems to have the special Stoic sense = in the absence of overriding circumstances

)(/card 7Tpi(TTa&lt;rtv, cf. Epict. diss. III. 14. 7, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 24. 131. In p. 144, 19, frag. this connection we may s division of into compare Diog. KaOr^Kovra rd avev irepi- such as , vyiia&lt;&gt; Trt,^e\ela6ai (or /caX&J? xprja-Oai as here), and rd Kara irepitrraa-iv, such as T^V

iappCirmv (vn. 109). Hirzel, p. 825, denies that belongs to the elder Stoics, thinking that it was taken over subsequently from the Academics and He would substitute Peripatetics. here &lt;y? irpo^^kvwv. dScVj points to the purging of the soul from the in

fluence of the irdOr] : Seo? is a subdivision of not &lt;/&gt;o/3o&lt;? defined Stob. Eel. very explicitly ap. n. 7. 10 p. 92, 5. deav(iao-Tov. Cf. Hor. Epist. I. 6. 1, 2, nil admirari prope res est una Numici solaque quae possit facere et servare beatum where see ; Orelli, who properly observes that TO 6avfj,d%eiv, which Plato and Aristotle speak of as the of starting point philosophy, is something quite different.

Cf. Marc. Aurel. 1. 15, Cic. Tusc. in. 30. Hence AIT. Epict. Diss. I. 18, 11, fj,TJ Bav^aQe TO Ka\\o&lt;; icai TJ}? yvvai/cos rq&gt; &J ov xa\7ravel$. For 8id0e&lt;riv see on frag. 117.

170. Seneca 30, 2, Zenon ait: accedet ad rempublicarn (sapiens), nisi si quid impedierit. id. Tranq. An. I. 7, Promptus compositusque sequor Zenonem, Clean- tamen them, Chrysippum ; quorum nemo ad rempublicam accessit, nemo non misit. The same doctrine is attributed to Chrysippus in L. VII. TroXirevecrOai rov dv Diog. 121, (fracri croffrov, fitj TI

do? ev : cf. K(I)\VTJ, &lt;f)rj&lt;ri \pit(TL7nro&lt;; Trptarw Trepl ftlwv Cic. Fin. in. on 68, Schol. Lucan II. 380, Stoicorum sapiens erit civilis, hoc est, in administratione rei publicae. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 205

TO rro\ireveadai is another instance of KaOtj/cov which is to be undertaken /card rov rrpo^ov^evov \6yov (Stob.

1 on last II. 7. II = (see frag.). Eel. ", p. HI, 5) rrporjjovpevo)^ while TO 7ro\irevea6ai is We may say then that, KadrjKOV rroXireveaOai is or (ii&gt;ev TO 7rpOTjyov/J,evws Trepio-rdaews, //,?; as a careful use of wealth KaQijfcov Kara rrepicrraaLV, just is contrasted with the condition of the spendthrift.

Kal w? 6 171. Diog. VII. 121, ja/j,rjo-etv, Ztjvcov ev 7ro\iT6ia, (rov aofyov) Kal 7rai$o7rot,ij(Tecr0ai.

1 ii. II" Cic. Fin. in. 68. The Cf. Stob. Eel. 7. , p. 109, 16, statement refers to the duty of a wise man under existing civil com circumstances, and while living in an ordinary reference to the ideal state in which munity. It has 110 wives are to be held in common (frag. 176) : 7^09 clearly to the and yafielv is a rcaOrjtcov. This belongs d&id&lt;j&gt;opa who strains seems better that Wellmann s view p. 439, into con the meaning of 7/*o9 to bring this passage and is the formity with frag. 170, strongly supported by of the wise man to enter analogous case of the duty public to in life. The latter clearly refers existing political b Eel. II. 7. ll 7ro?UTeiWtfat stitutions, cf. Stob. , p. 94, 9, ev Tat? TotauTCU? vroXiTe/ai? TCU? TOV a-o(j)ov Kal fjudXiara

T&lt;? TeXeta? TroXtTet a?. e^aivova-a^ rivd TrpoKOTrr/v 77/309 for the two The same explanation will account passages where similar views are attributed in Diog. VI. 11 and 72, Socrates to the Cynics, without supposing (with Zeller, of between Antisthenes and p. .320) a divergence opinion Diogenes.

rov 172. Dioo-. L. VII. 129, Kal epacrOria-ecrOai Be rwv vewv ruv epfyaivovrwv Bid rov eiSovs rr}v Trpos ao&lt;j)ov * v T t &gt;7 aL vwv rro\neia. av, w? l ^l !&gt; dperrjv ev(f&gt;vt 4 20. This is no F(jr the Cynics see Introd. p. passage 206 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

doubt inspired by the influence of the Phaedrus and

Symposium. Speaking of the eptu? of Socrates Dr remarks Thompson (Phaedrus App. i. p. 152): "It was not the of beauty , but his splendid mental his endowments, great capacity for good or for evil, which excited the admiration and the solicitude of Socrates." Cf. 208 B foil, and for Symp. evfyvtav ib. 209 B, ^rvxfl Kal real Kokf) yevvaia evfyvel, cf. frag. 147, /caraXrjTrrov elvat, TO e 77^09 eiSovs. We must distinguish between the e/3609 of the arrovSalos and the TO &lt;f)av\o&lt;t. epav itself to the class of belongs dSidfopa, and implies, therefore, a the corresponding tcafffj/cov, duty, that is, b9 rov icakw Stob. Eel. II. 7. o epdv, , p. 66, 310. If then the objection is raised that the o-jrovbalos should avoid if he is to ep&&gt;9, retain his since is drrddeia, epo&gt;9 a sub division of and a eTTiOvfjiia rrd6o&lt;$, the answer is that this is untrue of that form of particular ep&&gt;9 which is defined as 7ri/3o\rj (f)i\o7roiia&lt;j Bid tcd\\os e^aivo^evov (Stob. 1. c. 1. ib. 10 12, p. 91, 15, IP p. 115, 1, Diog. L. vn. 113, 120, Sext. Math. vn. Emp. 239), and which is not an ewidvpia. Under are to be classed briBv/ua spares afoSpoi only, and in Diog. vn. 113 the distinction between the two classes of is e/xu? clearly indicated. Cic., Fin. III. 68, speaks of sanctos.

173. Athen. XIII. 563 E, Kal TOVTO ^ie rov dpxrjyov vp&v TT;? cro^t a? /jjjvwva rov oviKa, 09 ov&eTrwTrore yvvaiKt e^pijaaro 7rai8itcoc&lt;t B del" 0)9 Aj/rt- 6 701/09 Kapvo-riof icrropel ev rw rrepl rov (3iov avrov " Set 0pv\\iT6 yap on firj rwv awpdrtov d\\d

8i K.T.X. It is most \&gt;.-f[ natural to suppose that these are Zeno s words from the position of his name in the context. For the sense see on frag. 172. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 207

P. 101) 174. Clem. Alex. Paedag. in. 11. 74, p. 296 S., r o eot/ce elfcova veaviov /cat Kmet? /ir)vu&gt;i&gt; TO avrov dvSpiavroupyei ecrra), 0r/crt, Kauapov

, ofypvs /XT) rcaOei^evri, /u/^S o/x/u-a dvajreTrra^evov, o dvie- ~\.a&lt;7/j.evov, p,rj VTTTLO^ rpa^T/Xo?, /x^S

/j,eva rd rov crwftaro? /i^eXr;, aXXa [T] /jLereatpa op6os vovs Trpo? rov \6yov, O^UTT;? /fat teal KOI ws eipr)/j,ev(i)i&gt;, cr^/xaricr/Ltol Kivr)cri&lt;; /J,r)Sev roi? a/coXacrrof? eXTTt So?. Kdl dppevwjria aTrecrTCi) Se /cat o aTro Kal ypvaoyoeLwv teal epL07rw\iwv a\vs /cat o a?ro ci\\(i&gt;v epyaa-rrjpicav, evOa /cat eratpt/cw? wcrrrep eVt Te^ou? KaOe^o/Jievoi, Snj/jiepevovo iv. This remarkable fragment was first restored by Cobet

in Mnemos. O. S. vi. p. 339, who saw that the writer was necessarily speaking of young men and not of young women, as the word dppevwTria of itself shows. It seems probable, as Wachsmuth suggests, that this frag, comes from the epwrLKi] re^vr) (Introd. p. 30). veaviov. So Cobet I.e. for veaviba. Bind, with two MSS. reads veavia. Plut. de 45 Ka6ap6v. Cf. Audiendo 13, p. C, 7rpo&lt;T&)7rr.o

/caracTTacrt? KaOapd Kal dve/jicfoaTOS.

: cf. II. 1. dvaTre-n-Ta|i vov barefaced, impudent, Xen. Mem. 22, rci Se o/i/Ltara ex eiv dvaTreTrra^eva, of the woman representing Vice in Prodicus fable. See Aesch. Suppl. is 198, 9 and the comm. /u,r;8e StaeXacr/xe^oz/ an emen dation of Cobct s (Mnemos. xi. 387) for the MSS. /^S dvaKeK\aa-/jbevov, the meaning of which is not clear. With the alteration dvaTt. est hominis protervi et petu- lantis, 8ta/c. mollis et impudici. to rd is rejected by Wachsm. with great improvement the sense.

6p96s vovs, so Wachsm. for vulg. opQovov irpos /c.r.X. 208 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

it would Perhaps be better to place a comma after ,,, and connect rov with 7rpo&lt;? \6yov 6^vrtj&lt;f. Bind, brackets

KvT]o-is...v8i8ov(ra Bind, with some MSS.

: these are (ivpoirwXCuv shops mentioned as the lounges men. Ar. frequented by young Eq. 1375, rd peipdtcia ravrl rdv rw ~\.eya), pvpw. Lys. Or. 24 20, etcavros yap v^utv eidiarai 6 Trpoafoirdv fiev 7T/30&lt;? pvpoirwXelov, o 8e frpos Kovpelov, 6 Se o 8 OTTOI 737509 crKvroro^dov, dv rvyy : id. Or. 23. Isoc. Or. 3, 7. 48, OVK ev rot? aKipafaiois oi ov& ev rat9 veutrepot, Sierpifiov av\r)Tpi&lt;rtv ovS ev rot? TOioi/rot? aXX eV &lt;rv\\6yoi&lt;; rot? ti&gt; eTrirySev /JLCUT epevov ev oi? In Homer s time T(ix&T](rav. the smith s shop was used for this : Od. xvm. Hes. purpose 38, Op. 491 : later the barber s shop is most frequently mentioned: see the comm. on Hor. Sat. I. 7. 3. Other authorities are collected Charicles by Becker, E. T. p. 272.

KKo&lt;rjxT1 (i^voi...Kae56p.voi. So Cobet for Kefco&lt;r/j,r)/j.evai... Ka0eofj,vai. For the former word cf. Xen. Mem. in. 11. 4 where Theodota is of as spoken TroXuTeXa? fcefcoa-fjn]- ^kvr]v, arid Lucian, Ver. Hist. II. 46, yvvalKa^ -rrdw erai- pi/cus KKoa/j,r)/Mevai (quoted by Becker, Charicles E. T. and for the latter p. 249) ; Aeschin. Timarch. 74 roi)? eVt TWV olKt)fj,dra)v Kae^ofjiivovs (referred to by Wachsm.), and Catull. xxxvu. 8, 14.

175. Diog. L. VII. 22, Setv re eXeye roi)? vtov? Trdtrp

xpi")a0at Kal Kal iropeiq a-^fian /cat -rrepi-

this is a reference Possibly only to the preceding frag. For see on 31. = jropeia frag. 7repL/3o\rj clothing.

176 L. VII. Diog. 131, dpeo-Kei 8e avrols Kal tcoivds elvai ra? Seiv yuvaltcas irapd rot? cro^ofr axrre rov eV- rf] evrvxovarj KaQu ev ^PW^ai, (770-4 Zrjvwv rf, THE FKAGMENTS OF ZEXO. 209

TToXtre/a. ib. 33, icoivds re -m? yvvaiKas vroXtreta. oyu-oico? n/Varom ev TTJ For the Cynics see Introd. p. 20. Observe, however, that Chrysippus concurred in this opinion, which must not therefore be treated as merely Cynical.

177. Diog. L. VII. 33, /cat eaOfJTi, Se Trj avTrj Ke\evei Kdl /cat (Tir/vuiv) %pfjcrdai dvSpas yvvaifcas

The same view seems to have been advocated by the lines Cynics. Hence the point of s quoted by L. VI. e e^oi, Diog. 93, &lt;TV/ji7repnraTr]aei&lt;; yap rpi/Bajv ^oucr TW KVVIKW Trod Socrates in SaTrep KparijTi 77 &lt;yw&gt;i. a Xen. Symp. II. 3 says : earO^ aX\.rj pev yvvaifcl words dvSpl Kakrj. With regard to the /jLr)8ev

" : The latter act is d-jroK. Zeller, p. 308 n. 2, remarks such as for only conditional and allowed in certain cases, But the limitation is Plato s purposes of ." seen that (Rep. v. 452 A, 457 A) and we have already

to abolish : it well be that Zeno proposed &lt;yvfj,vda-ia may Zeno, like the Cynics, disclaimed the theoretical propriety There is no of the ordinary rules of modesty in dress. of and question here of the KaOrjKovra ordinary life, of view is Zeno s departure from the Cynical point largely to be found in this direction.

178. c. Celsum, VII. 63, p. 739, e/CK\ivova-i ol ra rov TO fioi^eveiv Kmeeo? Zr/vwvos &lt;tXocro&lt;/&gt;o{We9... elvai TO) aj(i) Sid TO KOiVWVLKOV Kdl TTapd (J)VCTIV \OJLKW

voBeveiv rrjv VTTO rwv vo^wv erepco 7rpoKaTa\ rj(f)del(rav TOV d\\ov OCKOV. yvvaiKa /cal (bdetpetv dv0pa&gt;7rov is an TO Since strictly speaking marriage dSidtfiopov, to and such an /jLoixeveiv cannot be contrary virtue, offence would be impossible in the ideal state. Still, with


constituted as it is, firj fj^oi^eveiv is Kadr) Kov avev and therefore Trepia-rda-eeof Kara fyva-iv. The wise man will recognise the of the state in which he lives in the same in which he takes spirit part in its public affairs b Eel. ii. 7. ll 8 (Stob. 94, foil.). In Sext. Pyrrh. in. 209 we find TGI;? ye /JLTJV ^ot^oi)* Ko\det Trap rjfj.lv yo/zo?, Trapd Be ricriv e&rt rat? rwv dSid&lt;j&gt;opov erepwv yvvatgl fUr/mMrvav real 8e rives $i\oa6$&gt;wv (fracriv d8id&lt;popov eivat ro dXXorpia yvvaiKi fiiywcrBai. The Stoics are probably indicated, and the passage is in no way inconsistent with the cf. ad Autol. HI. 3 present, Theoph. p. 118 D, ot^i Kal Trepi crefivor^ro^ Treipwfjtevoi ypdfaiv da-e\yeia&lt;f KOI Kal jropvetas poixcCas eSiSagav eTTireXetadai, en pyv /cat ra? o-rvyrjrds dpprjroTrouas elcrrjyrjcravTo ;

179. Sext. in. olov Emp. Pyrrh. 245, yovv 6 alpeo-i- dpxrj? avr&v Zrfvcav ev rat? TraiScav Siarpifiais &lt;fyr)&lt;rt Trepi d\\a re Kal rdSe " dywyrjs opoia Sta/j.r)pieiv w&ev fj,d\\ov /A7?8e r/o-o-ov TraiSitcd TraiSixd 77 /zr) /jLijSe 0r)\ea rj dppeva ov TraiSiKOis d\\a yap [ecrrt] 77 fxrj Trai8itcoi&lt;? ovSe OyXeiais

rj d\\d ravrd re dppea-iv, TrpeVet Kal irpeTrovra ea-rtv." The same fragment is preserved by Sext. Emp. adv. Math. XL 190, introduced the words Kal by ^v Trepi ^ev iraiSwv dycoyrjf ev rat? 6 8iarpi/3at&lt;; aipea-idp^r}&lt;; Zrjvcav roiavrd nva Bity-euror, and with the variant d\\a Trat- SiKol? for ecrrt TraiSiKois d\\a.

lv rats Siarpipais. For this book see Introd. p. 30. The true aspect from which to regard this and the four next following fragments is very clearly set forth in a of c. Cels. passage Origen, iv. 45 (quoted by Zeller, n. p. 310, 1). "The Stoics made depend alone on the , and declared external actions, of to independent , be indifferent : el-rrov ovv ev rat Trepi ori r iSlw dSia&lt;f&gt;6p(i&gt;v roTrp \6ytp (the action THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 211

eariv, taken by itself) Ouyarpdcn fiiyvva-dat d8id(f&gt;opov V TCUS Ka0crTwcrais iroXireCais TO TOIOVTOV irouiv, A Kal |xi} \pr\ TOV Kal vTrodecretos xdpiv...7rapei\r)(j&gt;aa-i crofyov p,erd

TravTos TOV TU&gt;V 7-779 Ovyarpos ^6^779 KaTO\-e\eifJip,evov dvOpwTcwv yevovs Bie^Oappevov, Kal ^rjTovaiv el KaOrf- TOV KOVTWS 6 Trarrjp crvve\evaeraL rfj dvyarpl v-rrep [J,r/ This also illus d7ro\(rdat...To Tcdv TWV dvOpunrwv yevos." trates frag. 178.

180. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 246, Trepl Be T^? et? TOI)? et? ra yoveh ocTiOTT^ro? 6 auro? nvrjp (Zijixov] (f)Tjcriv vrept

Trjv loKaaTrjv Kal TOV OlSlTroSa OTL OVK r}V Seivov TpifleLV TL TOV Tr)v /jurjTepa Kal el pev daOevoixrav erepov /aepo? co ovoev et crco/xaro? Tpl-fyas rat? ^epalv ^eXet ala-^pov Se oo Kal eTepa fteprj rpt-v^a? evtypaivev, vi&gt;(j)p,evriv Travaa^, Sext. TratSa? IK Trjs /LtT/rpo? yevvaiovs eTroirja-ev, alcr-^pov. Erap. Math. XL 191, Kal ye o pev Zrjvwv TO, Trepl T^? OTL lo/cacTTT;? Kal OtStVoSo? io-TOpov/jievd (frrjcnv OVK r)v el daOevovcrav TO Seivbv rpl^rai TTJV fujrepa. Kal pev

^ r a ov8ev el Be crwfjLa rat? X P a pfy s w^eXet, ala^pov e GO Tcavcras Kai Tepu&gt; /juepei rptA/ra? evpev oBvvwfJiev^v TratSa? eK T^? ya^rpo? yevvaiovs Trot^cra? ri TJV ala-^pov ; ib. Pyrrh. III. 205, d\\d Kal 6 KtTievs Zrfvcov

droTTov elvai TO popiov r^9 /^rpo? TO&gt; eavTOv popiw

ovBe aXXo TI /Ltepo? TOV crcopaTO^ avTrjs TTJ Plut. Conv. III. (f)av\ov av eiirof, TLS elvai. Quaest. TOV Kvva Kal TOV av 6. 1, 6, o$&lt;? eywye vrj Zrjvcovos ev TLVL Kai Traiota e{3ov\6[JL r]v (j&gt;rj StayLt^ptcr/cioz)? crvfjiTrocriw

f) o-TTovBfjs rocrainri^ e^ofjievw o-vyypa/jL/j,aTi Tf)

It should be observed that Sextus does not state that

this extract as well as the last comes from the Siarpifiai, so that we may perhaps refer Plutarch s words to this both the : thinks that passage Wellmann however, p. 440, 142 212 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Sextus passages come from the Starpifiat,, in which case Plutarch s statement should form a separate fragment. Cf. Sext. Chrysipp. ap. Pyrrh. in. 246, id. ap. Epiphanius adv. Haeres. III. 2. 9 (in. 39), Diels, p. 593, eXeye yap Selv rats fieri fiiyvvaOai fjL-rjrp rot)? TratSas rot? 8e frarpda-i ra? L. dvyarepas. Diog. VII. 188, Theoph. ad Autol. III. G, 120 D.

181. Sext. adv. xi. Emp. Math. 190, Kal TT&lt;I\IV (6 " rov OVK Zijvwv) 8iafj,efArjpiKa&lt;&gt; epa&gt;/j,evov ; eywye. Trorepov OVK eVetfy/zT/cra? avrov Sia^plcrai ; KOI /LtaXa. a\X eVe-

dvpr)aa&lt;$ aoi avrov rj /ceXeOcrat irapaa-^eiv e&lt;f&gt;o/3&gt; ]67)&lt;; ; pd

At . aXX Ke\ev(ra$ ; Kal etr OVK yLtaXa. VTrr]peTr)cre aoi ; * ov yap. The line taken is here that the intention is all impor

and not the act in : tant, itself hence virtue belongs only to (nrovSaia Sid06&lt;rts, cf. Cleanth. frag. 95, bo-u? eTTidv/MJov dve^er alcr^pov 7rpdy/j,aTo&lt;? OUTO? Troir/cret TOUT edv xaipov \d^rj. Bekker aXX suggests 7n6v/j,jj(ra&lt;;...eir e&lt;

182. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 200, Kal TI OTTOV ye teal 01 aVo rfjf Kvvucrjs &lt;/)tXocro0/a9 Kal oi jrepl rov Kinea Zrjvtava Kal K\edv0r)v Kal XpvcriTnrov dSid- TOVTO elvai &lt;f&gt;opov (i.e. dppevopigiav)

183. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. in. 206, TO Te 1 eiraparov ov Trap rn^lv 6 Zrjvcav OVK

184. ad Autol. in. Theoph. 5, p. 119 C, TI trot eSoge TO, Zrjvcovo? 77 Ta Kal Atoyevovi K\edv6ovs, OTrdcra Trepi- at avrdov /3i/3\oi SiSda-Kovaai dvOpwrrofiopias, VTTO ISiwv rercvwv fiev fyeaOai Kal /3i/3pcaaKea-0ai THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

n rf;9 fiver ep K ai, el Tt? ov /3ov\oiTo Jj fiepos aTecr0iW0&lt;u TOV (payovra ; d-rropptyeiev, avTOv ^ re ical dvO Of. Diog. L. VII. 121, yeucrecrOai te Kara ib. 188 (Chrysippus) eV 7 trapic&v -rrtpiara, r&lt;j&gt; TOT)? a-Tro- Kara rot)? 4\iW arrows, ical Trepl Zucaiov X III. 247 V . Sext. 207, eavoina* K are&lt;r0{e L v Ke\ei Pyrrh. on Juv. xv. 107. Canni foil, Math. XL 192194, Mayor vi. 73, balism was also recommended by the Cynics, Diog. 5 ^8 dvoviov elvai TO ical dvOpanreiw Kpeuv &^aff0at, e0^, with which cf. an amusing 3,7X01; eV ruv aMwrpiav of the dead summary of the various modes of disposing III. in different countries, ap. Sext. Pyrrh. prevalent however that the Stoics 226229. It should be observed Kara only enjoined this practice

rou? oe 185. Epiphan. Haeres. III. 36, ical rot? Trapapd\\eiv ^vai v irvpi ypiia-Oai a/c&)Xf TO)?. 248 Math. XL Sext. m. ; Chrysippus, ap. Emp. Pyn-h. deceased relations 194 recommends that the flesh of if useless for that should be eaten if suitable for food, but, ara- TO pvfjpa eiroivovtriv fj purpose, r? KaTopv^avres The of these Kataavre* T)V T^pav d^ovaiv. meaning to be similar, and obscure words of Epiphanius appears used in this sense Trapapd\\eiv is certainly commonly Others however have explained the (see L. and S.). n. Thus p. 161, 314, words very differently. Stein, Psychol. to the doctrine of metem finds some allusion in them same ordered his body psychosis In the spirit Diogenes L. VI. 79, Cic. Tusc. to be cast forth unburied (Diog. the absolute unimportance of I. 104). Chrysippus proved the form of burial from a comparison of any particular of different nations Tusc. I. 108, varying practice (Cic. Sext. Pyrrh. in. 2269). 214 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

186. Cic. Fam. ix. 22. Ep. 1, Atqui hoc (libertas Zenoni loquendi) placuit...sed ut dico placet Stoicis suo quamque rem nomine appellare. Cf. Cic. Off. i. nee vero 128, audiendi sunt Cynici, aut ei fuerunt qui Stoici poene Cynici, qui reprehendunt et ea invident, quod quae re turpia non sunt nominibus ac verbis flagitiosa ducamus : and see Zeller, Socrates p. 326.

187. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20. 125 P. p. 494, S. p. 6 178, *a\&&gt;? Zr)vwv 7rl TOJV IvSuv eXeyev eva IvSov

e6e\etv &lt;di&gt;&gt; iSeiv 77 Trdaas ra&lt;f Trepl TTOVOV

The allusion to the Indians is explained by the words the Indian philosophers are said to have used to Alexander: (Tw^ara e/c TOTTOV et? pev /uera9 TOTTOV, i/ru^a? S ^/ierepa? OVK Troieiv a dvayicdo-fis ^ @ov\6/j,0a. irvp avdpwTrois peyio-TOv TOVTOV Kokaa-rripiov, &gt;J^et5 Kara^povovpev. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 7. 50. in Similarly Philo, telling the same omnis sit story: quod probus liber, p. 879, Trvp rot? /jLeyiarovs fcScrt aw^acri TTOVOW; tcai fydopav epyd^erai, TOVTOV VTrepdva) r^els yiv6/j,e6a, ^wi/re? KaioptQa. The attest the custom of burning themselves alive said to have been practised by the . Strabo, XV. 1. 65, 8 avTois aia-^ia-Tov vofjui^eadai voaov cra)/j,a- TOV 8 TiKrjv VTrovorja-avTa Ka6 avTov TOVTO e^dyetv eavTov Bid TTU/OO? vqaavTa Trvpdv, V7ra\ei-frd/j,vov Be KCU KadicravTa eVt TTJV Trvpdv vfatyai tceXeveiv, d/civrjTov Be KaievQat. Curt. viii. 9. 32, apud hos occupare fati diem et vivos se cremari pulcrum, iubent, quibus aut segnis aetas aut incommoda valitudo est :...inquinari putant nisi ignem qui spirantes recipit. Cic. Tusc. II. 40, (Mueller) uri se patiuntur Indi. The case of Calanus is particularly recorded, Cic. Tusc. II. 52 etc. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

\oyios, I. p. 487. civ, added by Cobet, Ep/^9 is no doubt some rds .dTToSc^s. There particular of which it is difficult now to reference in this, the point vi. Antisthenes 1 In L. 2, ascertain. May it refer to Diog. Std rov TTOI/O? vvvevr^e we read of him : on 6 dyaOov and in the list of his ^d\ov ttpa^ovs ical rov Kvpov, the same writer 1518) we find works preserved by (vi. ( of which bear the three with the title Hpa*\fo two ire alternative title rj pi

animi V. 13, ovrw 188. Galen de cogn. morbis, yovv K al Zijvtov rj^iov irdvra -rrpdrreiv r/^&lt;; dff&lt;pa\w*, ov9 varepov M -o/xei 0X1701; -jratia^ols v e eiceivos o av^p roi)? vroXXou? avdpv-irvv avrovs roZ? vreXa? eiriTipav xav /^Sel? -rrapa duties see Becker, Charicles, E. T. aratSa^o^ - for their

p. 226.

189. Stob. Flor. 14, 4 = Anton. Meliss. I. 52,

a LV e Xe7%e aavrov, ocrrt? el, fir) Trpo? X P dtcov, dfycupov 8e KO\aKa&gt;v Trapp^a-lav.

veavrov, for which see the \CYX ^avT6v recalls 7^w^t on Juv. XL 27. authorities ap. Mayor is the &KOV = do not listen to flatterers, ,rp6s Xdpvv of TI \eyeiv (Thuc. II. 65), TT/JO? passive form 77730* ^ovr^v Phil. I. 38), Trpo? Xap/ epek ^801/1)1; Siimopelv (Dem. The best illustration however is (Soph. O. T. 1152). 23, the wise man ovre Trpoa- Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11", p. H4, (i iV L. rivl ovre rov Trpo? X P ^oyov, Diog. (j&gt;epei irpovierai vii. 117. Meineke would also ascribe to Zeno the couple n. where the lemma in the MSS. quoted by Stob. Flor. 12, is Zyvooorov. 21 6 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

190. Maxim. Floril. c. 6, ed. Mai, o fiev yevpyos a&lt; (av av TTO\VV teal KO\OV 6e\oi Kapjrov \a/3eiv uxf&gt;\ifj,ov eavrov KLvot&lt;; Kal Travra e "Trape^erai rpOTrov

Kal Qepcnrevei vroXt) Se pd\\ov avdpwjrot, rot? eo&lt; 7re(f)VKacri ^apt^ea-dai Kal Trepl -7-01)9 TOIOVTOVS &lt;T7rovSdef.v Kal Oavfxacrrov ovBev. Kal yap Kal roav TOV (jco/iaro? bceivittV eVt/ieXoi;//,e#a fjbd\\ov (nrep (J

eaurot? Trpos rrjv VTnjpea-iav vofjbi^op,ev elvai, o &v ev v&lt;f&gt; Trda-^etv d^iovfjLev, &)(/)eXt/i aXXa rot? elvai Sei. ovSe e Xat a , /JLTJ ^670^9 yap 77

depairevovTi avrrjv 7raydX\eTai, aXX e(/&gt;epoucra re al /eaXoi)&lt;? KapTrovs ejreicrev eavrijs eVt-

This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 6): see Introd. p. 31. 0\oi: unless ^eX?; be read, av belongs to the verb.

Cf. Dem. de Cor. &lt;Lv o 246, aXXa fj,r/v y av ptjrwp inrevOvvos eirj, iracrav e^eraaiv Xa/i/3a^e. But it is often difficult to determine whether the optative is really potential. See Fennell on Find. Nem. iv. 8, Goodwin 557, Madvig 137. cf. Clean th. 75 and 77. w4&gt;&i|xov, frags.

" " av8pwiroi, ol addendum ? Wachsm. Jelf 654 b.

191. Athen. XHI. 565 D, 6 Se o-o^o? eVeti/o? Zijva)v, w?

6 &lt;w? (f&gt;rj(Tiv Avriyovos Kapvarios, TrpopavTevo/Aevos v/j,aiv

TO ei/co? Trepl TOV fiiov Kal r/79 Trpoa-Tronjrou TTiTrjSevcrea)S,

ru&gt;v &lt;W9 01 avrov Kal crvvevTes &lt;j)rj TrapaKovcravres \oya)v pi] ecrovrai pvTrapol Kal dv\evdepoi KaBaTrep ol TTJS Aptcr- TITTTTOV Trapeve^Oe.vre^ a/pecreco9 dffVTOl Kal dpacrels.

Cic., N. D. III. 77, attributes this remark to Aristo : si verum est quod Aristo Chius dicere solebat, nocere audientibus philosophos iis, qui bene dicta male interpre- THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 217

asotos ex acerbos e Zenonis tarentur : posse enim Aristippi, Athe- schola exire. It should be observed, however, that of as the source of his naeus specifies Antigonus entitled to information, so that he is at least as much credit as Cicero.

TO rov 192. Stob. Floril. 6. 62, ev yap eipvjrai, efy, ov teal rov Ztjvwvos on rovrov eve/fa Kapreov KO^reov, r VTTO Kara (va fiapovpevos ns TT?&lt;? /CO/XT;? ^8 &lt;j&gt;vcriv, M evoxXovpevos rj vrpo? (j,r)Bjj,lav evepyetav. to nature, i.e. external rod Kurd 4&gt;(iriv. Conformity those environment, is taken as the basis of all actions, with constitute which, although unconnected virtue, yet L. VII. 108, Se the objects of KaOrj/covra, Diog. evepyrj^a rat? Kara Karaa-Kevah oliceiov, avro (KaOfJKov) elvcu, (f&gt;vcnv a ii. 7. 8 13 L. vn. 105. Stob. Eel. , p. 86, ; Diog.

/cat rov 193. Diog. L. VIII. 48, d\\d H,T)V ovpavbv KOO-^OV KCU rrjv yrjv rrpwrov (i.e. Pythagoras) ovopdcraL co? Se rjV w? Se arpoyyv^V 0eo&lt;/&gt;/oacrro&lt;? TiapfJ^eviB

to are The lines of Hesiod supposed to be referred laov Theog. 126 128, Fata Se roi rrp&rov pev eyeivaro iva rrdvra Ka\vrrroi kavrfi ovpavov darepoevO /J.LV rrepl aid, which are ^eot? eSo? cr(/&gt;aXe&lt;? o&lt;f)p elr) fMCiKapea-o-i For the limited a very poor basis for the two assertions. VII. Kal sense in which /cocr/xo? is used, cf. Diog. 138, eivai avn]v Se rrjv SiaKOcr^a-iv rwv darepcov Koafiov 397. \eyovaiv, Krische, p. 396,

avff 6 Ktrtei)? ev ral? 194. Diog. L. VI. 91, Zrfvmv 8 avrov irore ^pet at? Kal icwSiov (Crates) ^al

ra&gt; rpiftcavi dveTnrpeirrovvra.

ais. Introd. 31. kv rats xp" p. 218 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

The Cynics adopted this as their charac teristic dress, Socrates following (Zeller, Socrates p. 316. E. T. Becker, Charicles, p. 419). Zeno himself wore the Tpi@(ov (cf. apoph. 3).

" dvcmTpcirrovvTa i.e. nee curavisse deformitatem." The word is omitted in L. and S. and also in Steph. Th. 195. Dio. Chrysost. LIII. 4, yeypafa Be real ZTJVUV 6 6t5 re &lt;j&gt;i\6ao(f&gt;o&lt;; rr,v IXtdSa Kal OSvo-reiav Kal rrjv -rrepl rov Be Bo/cel Kal Mapyirov yap rovro TO Troirj^a vrro v Kal yeyovevai vewrepov aTroTreipwpevov rijs avrov 6 Be 7rpo5 TTOirja-iv. Z^vwv ovBev rcav rov Opijpov &pa Birjyovpevos /cal BiBdo-Kvv ore ra pev Kara B6av ra Be Kara d\ij0eiav yeypafev, OTTW? ^ faivrjrcu avrfa avTa&gt; ev THTI BOKOVCTIV jMjfOfUVO^ evavTifo? cipijtrOai. 6 Be \6yos ovrof Avrttrfftvow earl -rrporepov on ra fj.ev ra Be Bofy d\i)0eia eiprjrai ru&gt; dX&gt;C o OVK rro^rfj- pei&gt; avrov, 6 Be naff egeipydo-aro eicaarov ruv eirl pepovs eBrjXaxrev. For the of object Zeno s Homeric studies cf. Krische who p. 393, 394, points out that, although Zeno may have incidentally controverted some of the Chorizontes of his time, yet his main was to object fortify Stoic precepts by to appealing Homer s authority. For Antisthenes see Zeller, Socrates p. 330.

MopY&lt;j. This work seems to have resisted the dis integrating which from process, early times was applied to Homer s better works, than any other of the poems ascribed to the him, except Iliad and Odyssey. Aristotle (Poet. iv. does not 10) question Homer s authorship. 196. Plut. comm. Hesiod. ix, Zr,W 6 2 evt]\\arre TOI)? trri^ovf \eywv

pev Travdpurro? 05 ev eiirovri iriOrfrai 1 B av Kaicelvos 05 auras Trdvra vorjcrrj, THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 219

ei TreiOeia ra Se ra rfj Trputrela cioovs, rp &lt;j)pov&gt;j&lt;r6i in Proclus on 291, oevTepela. The same Hesiod, Op. cf. L. vn. 26, Gaisf. Poet. Gr. Min. n. p. 200, Diog. 25, whose comment on the change of place in the lines is TOV aicovaai aX,o5? as follows : Kpeirrova yap elvai rov 01 avrov 8vvdfA6Vov TO \eyofjievov Kal xpf)cr0at ai/T&lt;&gt;, TO avveivai. TO Tcav crvvvoiicravTos. TW /j,ev yap elvai povov Themist. rut 8 v TreiaOevTi Trpoaeivai, Kal rrjv Trpafyv. 6 XiW Or. VIII. 108 C, e/iot 8e Kal ZTJVWV KtTteu9 apeaTO? ewat rr/v einreiOetav aTro^rjvdpevo^ rtf? 7%^ota&lt;? dperrjv K.T.\. &aai\iKWTepav /cat rrjv rd^iv ryv H&ioSov /AeraOels id. Or. XIII. 171 Zr/vwv 6 KtTtei)? D, 6pO(a&lt;; yap vire^d/ji^ave elvai rrjv evirelOeiav. /3aa-i\iKO)Tpav rrj&lt;? ay^Lvoia^ or The lines of Hesiod (Op. 291) are often quoted

I. Liv. xxn. Ant. imitated : cf. Ar. Eth. 4, 7, 29, 8, Soph. vroXu rov TrdvT 720 (f)r)^ eywye Trpeafteveiv (frvvai, dvopa rwv ev Ka\ov 7rto-T7At77? 7r\ewV el 8 OVV...KCU \eyovrwv

TO /jL,av0dvei,v.

6 197. Plut. de and. poet. p. 33 E, teal Zrjvwv eiravop- TO TOV 2o^)oXeou9,

oo-Ti? Se Trpo? Tvpavvov IfMTropeveTai,

tcelvov crTt SoOXo? Kav e\ev0epo&lt;&gt;

OVK eo-Tt SoOXo? av (J. rjv) e\ev6epos TOV Kal W e\vBep(t) vvv avveK^aivwv dSerj peya\6(f)pova Ka This was also to The fragm. is no. 711 (Bind.). given n. authorities : sec L. Aristippus or Plato by other Diog. For cf. 149. 82. \i&gt;6epo&lt;; frag. Arabia 198. Strabo vn. 3. 6, Homer never mentions

el TW /JLTJ Zr/vwvL &lt;/u\ocro&lt;/&gt;ft&gt; Trpocre/tTeoi/ ypdfyovTi Te. A.i6loira&lt;; 8 IKO^V Kal StSoviou? "Apa/3a5 220 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Horn. Od. iv. 83 where the edd. now adopt *at 01)5 the of Posidonius: reading Crates of pre ferred EpefjLvovs (Krische p. 393).

199. Stob. Floril. 95. 21, Zijvtov fyq Kpdrrjra avayiyvcao-fceiv ev cr/cineta) KaOr/pevov rov \picrrore\ov&lt;j ov TrporpeTrriKov eypa^e Trpd? Oe/uWi/a rvv Kwrrpioav /3a&lt;ri\ea on ovSevl rr\eiw \eycov dyaffd vrrdp^L 777)09 TO 7r\ovrov re (f&gt;i\oo-o(f&gt;ija-ai, yap TrXeio-rov avrov e%eiv axj-re Scnravav et? ravra 8e en Sogav vTrdp-^etv avrw. dvayiyvut- O-/COI/TO? Se avrov rov cricvrea e&lt;j)r) Trpoo-e^eiv &lt;ifj,a pdjrrovra, ical rov Kpdrrjra ei-jrelv co eya /j,oi Sotcw, &lt;J&gt;tXtV/ce, ypdtyetv o9 ere TrporpeTrri/fov 7r\ei(o yap 6pd) aoi v os TO wv &lt;f)i\o&lt;ro&lt;f)f)(Tai eypatyev Apia-roreXrjs. This passage belongs to the work entitled a: Introd. p. 31.

200. Stob. Floril. 36. 26, Zr/vcov r&lt;5v 7-01)9 f^ev &lt;f)i\o\6yov&lt;f elvat 7-01)9 Be \oyo&lt;f&gt;i\ov&lt;;. The is made clear k meaning by Stob. Eel. II. 7. ll p. where it is 105, 4, said of the : elvai (f&gt;av\os prjBe (f&gt;i\6- Be \oyov, \oyo&lt;j)t,\ov pdXXov, f^e^pt, \aXtds eTrnroXalov ri Be Trpoftaivovra, fj.y/ce Kal rois epyois K{3e/3aiov/j,evov rov r^9 dperijs \6yov.

201. Stob. Floril. 6. 34, 6 Zjvtov rjria.ro rovs rr\eia- roi)9 aTro rwv \eyo)v, egov rcovwv ra9 rjBovds fapeiv, drrb rutv fiayeipeiwv \ap/3dvovra&lt;;. mJvwv. This passage should have been quoted in the note on frag. 128.

202. Stob. Floril. 4. 107, Zjvtov Be efa yeXolov e/cao"Toi/9 roi&lt;? Bel fJ&gt;ev rrpayp.acriv cos ^fjv urj rrpoo~eyiv 009 OVK rbv Be elBorw, Trapd irdvrwv eiraivov davfjid^eiv W9 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 221 and Trpdyfiacnv is clearly corrupt but Mr D. Hicks Wachsmuth reads 7rapayyel\aa-iv, R TWV which suggests rot? -rrapa vofywv TrapayyeX^aa-iV restores the balance of the sentence.

For the sense cf. Cleanth. frag. 100. APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

1. L. VII. avrov Diog. 2, %pi&gt;j&lt;TTr)pia%ofjLevov rl wparrwv dpiara (Sioocrerai, aTrotcpivacrdai rov 6eov el

rot? veicpols. odev gvvevra, ra TOJV d

The same in Suid. s. v. col. 938.

2. L. VII. djro Diog. 3, 7rop&lt;f)vpav e/ji7rTropevfj,evo&lt;;

ru&gt; dve\0(av 8e 7-179 Qoivlicris 7rp6&lt;; TLeipaiet evavdyrja-ev. etcdOtae TWO, 64? ra? A#?7z/a&lt;? ^187; rpiaKovrovrr]^, Trapd 8e etcetvov /, dvayvyixacrKOVTos TO Sevrepov TWV

d-TTOfivrj/jLovev/jidTtav rja-Oel^ eTrvdero TTOV Sta- ol TOIOVTOI 8e rplfioiev dvSpes. VKaipa&gt;&lt;; Trapiovros o /3t/3XiO7r&)X,7^9 Set avrov KpaTijTOS, ^a? &lt;f&gt;r]cri, rovry trapa- Cf. Themist. Or. XXIII. 295 D, ra 8e Ko\ov6i)crov. a/i&lt;/&gt;i Zrjvcavos dpi8r)\d re ecrrt /cat d86(J,eva VTTO TroXXdSv 6ri avrov etc et9 TI 2,a)tcpdrov&lt;&gt; aTro\oyia &lt;froiviKrj&lt;t rrjv

Util. 3. Plut. de Inimic. 2, Zyvfov &e, rfc vavK\r]pla&lt;t

ev to avr(p crvvrpi/Belcr rjs, rrvdo/Jievo^ elirev, j, rv^rj, Trotet? et? rov rpi/3o)va &lt;Tvve\avvov(ra ^09. Plut. de Tranq. An.

Ta&gt; Ktrtet 6, Zrjvavt pia vavs Treptrjv (f&gt;oprr)y6&lt;; rrvdofievos Be d7ro\co\evai ev ravrrjv avr6&lt;f&gt;oprov crvyK\vcr6el(Tav, ye, elirev *.T.\. with xal rrjv &lt;rrodv added after rpt/5va. Substantially the same account in Plut. de Exilio 11, with APOPHTHEGMATA OK ZENO. 223

in of KCLI crrodv. Suidas Kal (Siov fyi\6ao$&gt;ov place rrjv col. 1023 s. v. vvv einrXorjKa ore vevavdyr/Ka. eVt rwv

1 6 Kirteu Kara\i~ Trap \7rloa evrv^rjo-avruiv. Zr^vwv yap 9 Kal rov TTCOV TOI)&lt;? Trplv oi8ao-Ka\ov&lt;; Kpdrrjros (f)i\ocro(f)ov rovro /cat (froirr/rrjs yev6/j,evo&lt;; elprjKe, vavayiw 7repi7recro)i&gt; Troel eljrwv, ev 76 r) rv^rj 7rpoae\avvov&lt;ra 7//Ltr7? fyiXoaofyia * * * That the OUTCD TpaTTrjvai TT/DO? (f)i\ocro(f)Lav. story the account was given in various forms appears from Xun- in Diog. L. vn. 4, 5. Senec. de Tranq. An. 14, 2, audiret tiato naufragio Zeno noster, quum omnia sua

" " " submersa, lubet iiiquit me expeditius philoso-


4. Diog. L. VII. 19, 77^69 8e TOV (frdcrKovra (w? rd 7ro\\d avTw Avricrdevrjs OVK dpeaicei, xpelav So^o/cXeof? ipwr^crev el nva Kal fca\d e^etv avrw rov S OVK elSevai, ja-avros, elr OVK e n KCIKOV VTT (&gt;rj, p,ev TJV eprifjievov el Se ovo TOUT 6K\j6fjLvo&lt;i Kal ^vrjjjiovevwv , n KO\OV,

5. Diog. L. VII. 20, Xe70i/T09 &e TIVOS avrw irepl d\\a ?, a;? a\\a Trpode/Aevos \eyei, &lt;TKvdpa)7rdo-as, TTUCTOV r e&lt;prj, &lt;yp rfyira^ The explanation is thus given by Aldobrand : videbatur ac si ilia ita docere ergo cupiditatis Polemonem accusare, consuevisset, quomodo a discipulis tractaretur.

o Se rov 6. Plut. de prof, in virt. c. 6, Zr/vwv opwv

e6(f)paa-TOV eVl T&5 TroXXoi)? e%eiv fj,a0ijrd^ 8e o efcelvov fiev %opo?, etyr], ^ei^ojv, ovfjLO? citra inv. laud. c. ovrw 6 Plut. de seips. 17, &lt;ydp 6 TO 7r\f)6os rwv (")eo(f)pdo-rov /juadrjrwv,

xo&lt;? oe , 6 e 224 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

7. L. VII. 8 o Diog. 24, (prja-l ATroXX&mo? eX/coi/TO? avrov KparTjro? TOU tfiariov CITTO Sri

eiTrelv, u&gt; e&riv eVt8efo? 8t KpaTT??, Xa/3?; &lt;tXocrd&lt;/&gt;&&gt;i&gt; 77

Tft)i/ amai/ TreiVa? GUI/ eX/te rovrov. el Be pe /3taf/;, TO aoi 8e a Sr/XTrcim. /tier a&lt;3fj,a irapd ecrrai, r/ ^rv^rj Trap Cf. Cleanth., frag. 108, and for the concluding words

of the anecdote Arist. Ach. 6 1/01)5 398, /*ei/ ef&&gt; ^v\\ey(ov 7rv\\ia OVK ev&ov avTos 8 evSov /c.r.X. Plant. Aulul.

179, nunc domum properare propero : nam egomet sum hie, animus domist. Pseudol. 32, nam istic meus animus nunc est non in pectore, and Lorenz ad loc.

8. L. VI L e Be xal rwv rot)? Diog. 21, Xe7e &lt;f&gt;i\oa6&lt;f&gt;a)v ra. TToXXrt ra Be /cat 7r\ei&lt;TTov&lt;&gt;, /AW atro^of? elvai, /jurcpa

" Wilamowitz(Antigonos p. 117) says: die Philosophen sind in den meisten Dingen ungeschickt, von den gewohn- lichen begreifen sie nichts: sie wissen nur das eine was Not but we should read with tut," probably evfia6el&lt;t, Meric Casaubon.

9. Diog. L. VII. 20, etVoi/ro? Be TWOS on, pifcpu avrw BOKCI ra roov \oydpta (f&gt;t\oa-6(f)wv, \eyeis, etTre, rd\T)6ij. Bet fj-evroi Kal ra? cruXXaySa? avrwv /Spa^eta? elvai, el Bvvarov.

10. L. VII. Kal rov Be Diog. 25, 7rpo&lt;? Beigavra avna \eKTifcov ev eTrrd rq&gt; Oepi^ovn \6ya) BtaXeKTifcds IBeas Trvdecrdai Trocra? elcrTrpdrrerat, /jLiaOov aKovcravra Be ercarov Biaicocrias avru&gt; Bovvai.

The fallacy known as Oeplfav was concerned with the

" nature of the possible. According to Ammon. de Inter. 106 a 3 160 ed. [ p. Or.], Lucian, Vit. Auct. 22 the depi^wv was as follows : Either you will reap or you will not reap : APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 225

will it is therefore incorrect to say, perhaps you reap."

Zeller, p. 182.

11. Suidas col. 1202 s.v. SeXro? = Diog. L. vn. 37, at ov Kal rots" SeXroi?, K~\.edvdr)s, d&lt;j&gt;a&gt;polov &lt;JK\ripoK^pot^ oe rd Cf. Plut. fji,6\is fj,ev ypd(f)ovTat, 8iarrjpov(n ypa&lt;pevTa. de Audierido c. 18, uxnrep 6 KXedvOrjs Kal se

ci Sofcovvres elvai TU&gt;V crvcr^oXacrrwv, OVK eK TOV /J,av0dveiv ovoe aTreKa/jivov, d\\d /cat TrivaKicn et? avTov&lt;; 7rai,ov, dyyelois re /3pa^ucrro/Ltot? roi)? XaX/ca?? dTreiKdfrvres, ft5? /u,o \t9 p,ev TrapaSe^o/jievoi

Se Kal &lt;w&lt;? For Xoyou? ao-&lt;/&gt;aX&)? /3e/3ai Tijpovvres. see Becker, Charicles, Eng. Tr. p. 102.

12. Diog. L. VII. 18, AptcrTtwt o? Se rou be Kal a 8ia~\.eyofj,evov OVK evcfrvuis, evia el ere 6 /cat Opacrecos, dSvvarov, elrrev, fir/ Trarrjp ^evvrjcrev. odev avrov Kal \d\ov aTre/caXet, Plut. de Educ. Puer. 3. &lt;av. Attributed to Diogenes by

13. Stob. Floril. 36, 23, ra&gt;v TI&lt;S ev A/caS^/Lteta o oe veavi&lt;TKU&gt;v Trepl eTnniSev/jidrwv Sie^eyero dfypovws edv et? vovv Zrjvwv pr} TH]V y\d&gt;rrav, e&lt;f&gt;T], dTro/Bpegas SLaXeyr), TTO\V 7r\ei(o ert Kal ev rot? \6yois TrX^^eX^cret?.

v. Bel TOV et &lt;? Plut. Phoc. 2, 7j,r)va)V e\e&lt;yev on (f)i\6(To(f)ov \el~iv. Cf. Suidas I. vovv dTroftaTTTOVTa 7Tpo&lt;pepecr0ai rrjv p. TOV Ka\auov 328 (of Aristotle), rrjs ^ucrew? ypafM/Jbarevs ffV these words as aVo/3pe^wi/ et? vovv. Some have regarded s tincta where the original of Quintilian sensu (frag. 27, see note). Cf. M. Aurel. V. 16.

14. Diog. L. VII. 20, oelv Se e$r] TOV 8t,a\ey6/^vov, Kal (ocnrep rot;9 vTroKpiTas, TTJV [J,ev (f)(0vr)v Trjv ovva^iv oie\Keiv o Troielv fj,eyd\T]v eyeiv TO /jLevToi crro^a f^rj oe. roi)9 7ro\\d /jiev \a\ovvTas, dovvaTa


15. Diog. L. VII. 20, rot? fv \eyof4evois ovtc e^y &eiv KaraXeiTreadai TOTTOV, wcrTrep rots dyaOolf re^virat^i 619 TO dedGaaOai rovvavriov Se rov aKovovra OVTO) 7rpo&lt;? rot? ware \eyofjievois ylveadai, fj,rj \a/j,^dvetv %povov et?

TT)V 7riar)/jLl(i)&lt;TlV.

TOITOV : perhaps we should read %povov, uxnrep TOTTOV. 16. L. VII. 22, ^,7) ra? teal ra? Diog. &lt;j&gt;a)vds

TrofjLVTjfjioveveiv, d\\d Trepl ryv Std0e&lt;Ttv TTJS rov vovv da-^o\icr6ai fj,rj axnrep e-^rrjcriv nva rj

For the distinction between ^wvrf and Xe^t? cf. Diog. L. VII. Xei9 S ecrrt 56, ^xyy^ eyypdfj,fj,aros. The meaning is: we ought not to commit to memory the words and of a maxim expressions (xpeia? as in apoph. 4), but to exercise our mind as to its arrangement, without learning it heart like by a cookery recipe. For avaXapfidveiv cf. Plut. Agesil. 20, 3. Cobet, however, translates otherwise.

17. Diog. L. VII. 23, TO /caXXo? dire era) T^9 &lt;/&gt;p 00-1^779 avdos elvat,

So followed for Cobet, by Wilamowitz, MSS. (fxavfjs . . . cf. L. (jxavr/v, Diog. VII. 130, apa dvQos dperfc. Zeno, frag. 147, tcaTd\r)7TTov elvat, TO 77^05 e^ eiSovs.

18. Stob. Floril. Monac. 6 196, Zrjvwv &lt;^&gt;t\6cro0o?, \ey6vra)v rivdav ort irapdSoga \eyei, 17TV, aXX ov irapd- vopa. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 107.

19. Plut. de Virt. Mor. 4, tcairoi teal Zr/vwvd &lt;j&gt;aa-tv et? Oearpov dviovra KiOapySovvros A/^ot/Seo)? Trpo? TOI)? HaOrjrds, Iwpev, eiireiv, OTT&K tcaTa^ddca^ev otav evrepa rcai, teat v\a teal oa-rd Kal vevpa \6yov dpid/j,ov /j,era&lt;r- Kal %ovra Tafeeo? e/i/ieXeiai/ Kal (frwvrjv d^itjcriv. Cf. Plut. Arat. c. 17, 2, aSovros A/Ltoty3e&)9 eV TCO Bedrpy, a passage which also fixes Amoebeus as a con temporary of Antigonus. APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 227

20. Stob. Floril. 36, 19, Zrjvwv Trpo? rov 7T\etw \a\elv


d/coveiv veavicrice" "77 rjp.lv Oe\ovra i] elrcev, &lt;/w&lt;Tt? Svo oe wra iva SiTrX.acriova y\wrrav /Jiev fAiav Trapecr^ev, L. VII. TO wv \eyo/j,ev dtcovwpev." Diog. 23, vrpo? &lt;f&gt;\vapovv 8vo Se ^eipdiciov, aid rovro, eljre, wra e^OfMev, aro^a ev, 8e cf. Plut. do Iva 7r\eiova /lev UKOVW^V, 7jrrova \6j(Of^ev, earns d Garrul. 1, /CCO^OTT;? yap avOaipercx; (sell. 77 on dv6pucnra)v, oljjLai, p.efji^&gt;o^evwv piav fjbev KOI rov 3 COTCL a^ovo-iv, id. de audiendo, 3, ydp eTraivwv rr Keiova vwv^av 6 ^7TLvOapo&lt;f e^rj fjur^re real /jurjre e\drrova (j)Oeyyof^ev(i) paoiws evrv%eiv erepa).

eicdaru) ovo fj,ev wra oovvai rr}v (frvcrtv r]jJLU&gt;v Xeyov&i 8e e\drrova dfcoveiv jjulav yXwrrav a5? \eyeiv rj o&lt;j)Gi- \ovri.

rro\\d 21. King. L. VII. 21, veaviaKov \a\ovvros,

t rci u&gt;rd aov et? ^)?;, rrjv &lt;y\wrrav (rvveppvrjKev.

elvai 22. Diog. L. VII. 26, eXe7e re Kpelrrov roi9

Troalv o\Lcr6elv rj rf] &lt;y\wrrr}. This is found several times in the collections of jvwfMai,

and is sometimes attributed to Socrates (cf. Stein, Psych, in : references are Wachsmuth p. 7, n. 5) the given by Sauppe s Satura Philologa, p. 29.

re avrov 23. Diog. L. VII. 14, 7r\eiovwv rrepiardvrtov TO rov oeii;as ev rfj aroa nar aKpov %v\ivov rrepifyepes oe ro TOUTO TTOTC ei&gt; e/ceiro oca ef^rro- /3a&gt;/jiov 6(^77, fjuecrw etc rov oi^eiv ioia ereOrf. tcai Lyzet? fj,ev /j,ecrov /Saarda-avres

avrovs rjrrov YJ^JUV evo-^Xrio-ere. Kohl or in Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297 proposes fidOpov

for (3(i)fMov.

\oi- 24. Diog. L. VII. 24, epwrydels 7r&5&lt;? e^ei vr/ao? drco- SopLdv, KaOdirep, elirev, el repea/Sevres dvarroicpiros are\\oiro. 152 228 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZEXO.

The point of this bon mot appears to have been lost in the tradition: it must originally have stood: "The man who abuses me I send away like an ambassador without an answer (tcaOaTrep el Trpeo-ftevrrjv dvarroicpirov

aTrocrreXXot/tu)": so Wilamowitz.

25. L. VII. ev Diog. 24, o-vprrocriw tcara/ceipevos crtyfj,

TTJV alriav ovv ru&gt; ijpwnjdtj. &lt;f&gt;r) eytcaXeaavri aTrayyeiXai

rov /3ao-tXea, ort rt&lt;? Giwjrav 7T/3O9 rraprjv eVto"rrt/u,ei&gt;o9. oe 01 rjo-av epwrrjaavres t7/3et&lt;? rrapd UroXepaiov 7rpe d&lt;f&gt;i-

1 KOfievoi, ical /3ov\6fj,evoi fj.aBelv rt eiTroiev Trap avrov rov a. Stob. Floril. 7T/90? /Sao-tXe 33, 10, Zr/va)i&gt;, AvTtyovov

A.6rjvae 7re/u,-/ravT09, tc\r)0ei&lt;; VTT avrojv cri/v eVt Kaiccivwv 0tXo&lt;7o&lt;^)ot9 SeiTrvov, Trapd irorov eTriBei/cvvaOat rrjv avrwv (!!~iv, ai/ro? eaiya. T(OV Se ri Trpeo-ftewv ^rjrovvrwv dTra&lt;yyei\w(n Trepl avrov

" " 7rpo&lt;f Avriyovov, rovr avro," o Sv&lt;r- e&lt;/&gt;?7, /SXeVere." Kparzcrrarov yap irdvrwv o \6yos. Pint, de Garrul. IV.

A.0T)vr}&lt;ri Se rt&lt;? ecrruwv Trpecr/Set? /SatrtXt/eoi/?, e&lt;f&gt;i\orifj,rj0r) (nrovoaov&lt;Tiv avrols crvvayayeiv ei&lt;f ravro roi)? d&gt;i\o- 8e rwv cr600L9, xpu&gt;n,evwv aXkwv KoivoXoyia /cat ra? aTroSiSovrojv rov oe Tirjvwvos r/av^iav ayovros. /cat 01 TrpoTTtovres %evot, Trepl &lt;rov oe ri xP n Xeyeiv, tyao-av, u&gt; Zrjvwv, rat y9ao-t\et ; /crzVet^o?, d\\o ori f*r)8ev, drrev, rj rrpecr^vr^ e&lt;rrlv ev AOr/vats rrapa rrorov aiwrrdv Svvdpevos. Also in an expanded form Theodor. ap. Metoch. p. 334, Kiessling. The anecdote in the form related in Diog. Laert. rests on the authority of Antigonus of Carystus, and hence Wilamowitz (Antig. p. 114) concludes that the king who sent the embassy was Ptolemaeus and not Antigonus Gonatas. It was natural that in later times, when the friendly relations subsisting between Antigonus and Zeno were remembered, the country of the ambassadors should APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 229 have been transferred from to Macedonia, Diogenes, of the however, has misconceived the object embassy, form in Plutarch. The which appears in a less corrupted ambassadors were sent to Athens, not to Zeno, and the but of Macedonian assembly was not one of philosophers the ambassadors were instructed to sound, partisans. These the mark in Zeno s case. but they seem to have missed Kircea 01 26. Aelian, Yar. H. IX. 26, Zrjvava rov /cat ical ev 6 /3acrtXeu&lt;?. aloovs ayav &lt;nrovorj&lt;; r)1 Air^yow oivov eTreKW rco Kai Trore ovv inrepTrXya-dels fiacre Zrjvwvi,, rl avrov Kal are egoivo? wv, rjgiov &lt;f&gt;i\wv 7repij3d\\(av veavievouevos avv ^} avrov Trpoa-ra^ai, ouvvs ical opKW drvxweiv rfc aiVjJo-ew?. 6 Se \eyei avry, iropevBel?

ical rrjv pedyv e\e&lt;yj-a&lt;; cpeo-ov &lt;re/Ai;t5? a^a peyaXo^povw vrore vrro 77X7707^179. Kal ^eto-ft^eyo? avrov M Biappayf) o 27. Athen. II. 55 F, Sio /cat Zyvcov Kmeik, &lt;rK\rjpo&lt;; eirl TrXelov wv Kal IT aw OvfjiiKos Trpo? rou? yvapluovs, Kal TOI)? rov oivov o-Trao-a? 7)81)9 eyivero /ie/Xt^o? vrpo? TO TTvvdavouevovs ovv rov rporrov rr)v Siatpopav e\eye eVeiVou? Sia- auro rot? Oepuois -rrad^iv, ical yap rcplv rconaQtVTas Se y\VKeis Kai ^pa-^fjvai TTi/cpoTarou? eli^at, de Anim. Mor. 3. IV. 777 K., /cat rrpoo-r)vea-rdrovs. Galen, ol Zr;va)v, a&gt; 5 0ao-^, eXe^ei/ ort, Kadd-rrep -rriKpol Oepaoi ovro) Kal avrov vrc ru&gt; vbari j^pe^o^evoi y\vKels yivovrat, Eustath. on Horn. Od. 293, 1910, oivov BiaTi0ecr0at. &lt;/&gt;, p. 6 Kirievs aXXto? o^ vrpo? 42, ZTJVMV ovv, (fracriv, crA,7/po9 et 7T\eiov oivov Tracrete o-?rao-ete) roi 9 o-vvrj0ei$, o/Lttu? (leg. rauVoy rt rot? ^8i)f eyivero Kal ^etXtxo?, Xe7&)^ Oeppow o? oi/T69 Stafipaxfjvai TronaOevres 7T&lt;7cr%eti&gt;, TTiKporepoi Trply Kal L. 7\u/cet9 ylvovrai Trpoa-rjvecrrepoi,. Similarly Diog. vil. 26.

6 o 28. Athen. vin. 345 c, Z^o^ 8 KiT4ei)9 roy w eVi , 7rpo9 otyocfrdyov avvefy 230 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZEXO.

Ka6d 6 Xpovov, &lt;f)ija-iv Avriyovot Kapvo-rios ev TO&gt; 119 $l(f&gt; (p. Wil.), peyaXov rivos Kara rv^nv d\\ov S TrapareQevros, ovSevos 7rapea-Kevacr/j.evov, o ctTTo rov Zijvwv Trivatcos olo&lt;f jjv Kareadieiv. rov

avra&gt;- ri efj.@\e\fravro&lt;; ovv, e^r), TOI)&lt;? o-u^coi/ra? aoi oiei Trdo-xew, ei av piav rj^pav pi] &e8vvi)&lt;rai evejfceiv di/ro- (payiav ; The same in Diog. L. VII. 19. 29. Athen. V. 186 D, 6 8e Zijvatv, eVet rt? raiv

Trapovrwv 6-^o(f)dya}v dfricrvpev afia rut TrapareOrjvai TO e7T(iva&gt; rov KCU rov i-)(6vo&lt;;, o-rpeS/ra? auro? l^vv (iTrea-vpev e7ri\eya)V (Eur. Bacch. 1129) Ivw 8e rdjrl Qdrzp egeipyd^ero. The same story is told of Bion Borysthenites, id. vm. 344 A. thinks it Schweighauser (Ind.) is rightly attri buted to Zeno.

30. L. VII. Svolv Diog. 17, & V7ravaKei/j.evoiv ev TTOTCO, /cat rov VTT avrov rov eavrov v&lt;f&gt; (TKifj,a\^ovro^ rw TroSt, avros Kelvov rw yovari. emo-rpafyevros B, ri ovv ol et rov vTTotcdrw aov V-JTO Trao-^eti/ &lt;rov ; see also Suidas, col. 792, s. v. a-KipaXiao). and Vulgo v-rrepavatc. VTrep avrov : corrected by Menage.

31. Stob. Floril. 57, 12, Z^vtav 6 STOHKO? nva r&v opwv yva)pifj.a)v VTTO rov dypov TT etirev edv fjurj crv rovrov aTroXeV?;?, O^TO? &lt;re a

32. Boissonade, Anecd. Gr. vol. i. p. 450, ZfjBi, &lt;Z dvdpwjre, ^77 tva teal povov ^^779 TT/J;? XX 7va To tfv TO ev tear Trpcx; tfv axprj cry, attributed to Zeno in Cod. Reg. Paris, 1168, seems to be another form of the well- known of Stob. saying Socrates, ap. Floril. 17, 22, {m/iev OVK iva aXX eadiwpev eV^^ev tva &fj,ev. This forms frag. eth. 10 in Wachsmuth s collection (Comm. I. p. 8), who refers to other passages giving the saying to Zeno. APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 231

33. L. vii. KOI ra rov Diog. 21, Trpoe^epero J.a&lt;jyi)&lt;riov ft)?. e7ri/3a\o/jLi&gt;ov TIVOS TUIV fjLaOrjTwv fjbeyd\a (frvadv,

&$&lt;? OVK ev J TO ev Trara^as enrev, TM f ieyd\a) Keipevov elr), a\\ ev T&lt;M ev TO fieya. The saying of Caphesias is recorded also by Athen. xiv. 629, A.

34. L. VII. TO ev Diog. 26, yiveaOai, irapd fjiitcpov, ov

H*r)v fit/cpov elvai.

35. Plut. de vit. pud. 13, TO TOI) Zirjvwvos, w? cnrav- Tivl veavicrKfa TO Trjo~a&lt;; TWV (Jvvr]Qwv Trapa Kal OTI /3a8iovTi, TrvdofAevos, (f&gt;ev&gt;yei fyi\ov

avTa&gt; TO, TL ere Tvpelv tyevSrj Xe7et?, (frrjcriv, d/3e\Tepe ; dyvo)/j,ova)v Kal dSitcwv ov 8e8iev ou8 alcr- av 8 eicelvov inrep TWV Sitcalfov ov dappels VTTO-

36. Diog. L. VII. 16, 17, olov eVt TOI)

. TL avTov o%eTioi&gt; &lt;ydp OKvrjp&s TOV ov eo-Tiv , elirev, v(f)opa Trr/^ov yap ev

37. Diog. L. VII. 19, ^ipanlov 8e TrepiepyoTepov irapa KCLTQIT- TTJV r/\LKLav epfDTWVTOS ^r)TTjfj,d TI, Trpoo rj yaje Trpo? Kal e/ceXeucrei eVeiT / el Tpov, efj,(3\e\lrai,. 7jpa!&gt;T r]o-ev TO, avTM dpfjLOTTOVTa eivai en/ret TotavTa

38. Diog. L. vii. 21, veavitrxov Be TWOS OpaavTepov OVK dv a 8ia\e&lt;yofAevov, etTrot/xt, effrtj, iieipaKiov, eVep^eTat yitot.

39. Diog. L. VII. 21, Trpo? TO^ Ka\6v elirovTa OTL ov 6 pao~dr]o~o~dat cro009, ovbev, ec^rj, Vfjiu&gt;v

ecrea dai TWV Ka\a&gt;v (el jjt,r) rj/mels epaa-Orjo-6- fieda, added by Menage from Hesych. Mil.). Cf. frag. 172. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 63. 21. APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

40. Diog. L. vii. 22, TTCLVTW IXe ei/ 7 d-rrpeirearepov elvai rov teal rv&lt;f&gt;ov, ^akiara eVt rtov vecav.

Diog. L. vii. 23, rov Trpo? icexpio-^evov ra&gt; pvpy, rt? eo-riv, 6 etfyij, yvvaitc6&lt;; o&v ; cf. Xen. Syrap. II. 3.

42. Stob. Eel. n. 31, 81, p. 215, 13 = Exc. e MS. Flor. Damasc. p. n. c. 13, 81, Zjvuv ^r^el^ TTW? &lt;iv 9 veo? eXa^tcrra a^aprai/ot, et irpt 6(f&gt;8a\}4(Sv e^et, e^, ou? fiaXiara ripa tcai al

43. Floril. 15, 12, ^Stob. Zijvwv 717)09 TOU? a7ro\o7ou- ovt v-n-ep T^? ayrwi/ ao-wrta? /fat Xeyovras ex TTO\\OV rov TrepiovTOS dva\i&lt;TKeiv e\ejev, r; /cai rot? payei edv a-vwvwcreade, aXpvpd \eyaxri TreTroirjtcevai, rd o

on TrXfjOos d\wv avroi&lt;? i

44. L. vii. Diog. 17, epuriKw Be oWe/^ei/o? Xpe- avrov re /cat K\edv0ovs, dve Se TOV Ka evov^ rj, -rv arpwv dicovfo rtav dyaduv elvai fcpdriarov &lt;^dp^aKov Trpo? ra iat- &lt;/&gt;Xe 7/t vovra rjavyiav.

For Chremonides cf. Introd. p. 6.

45. L. VII. 18, Se rov Diog. 7T/&gt;09 ^XoTratSa, oi^re rot)? aet ^77 &lt;f&gt;peva&lt;; e^eti/, oiarpifiovTas ev

, ovre eVet i/oi"?.

46. Stob. Floril. 17, 43, Zijveov Se 6 Ktrtei)? ovSe yero Beiv rpo^v a\X -wv^ Trpoo-^epeadai Tpvfapcorepav, eVet o eVeXeyei/ OepajreiKav iarpos avrov (frayeiv veorrov

" ovtc " Trepio-repds, to&lt;? dvao-%6ij.evo&lt;t, Mavfjv," ^77, /ie Bepajreve." Manes was a common slave s name, cf. Ar. Av. 522, APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

t r OUTO&gt;&lt;? /itt? Trdvres frporepov peyXovs yiovs on 8 Mai/a?. Sec also Sandys vvv az/fyaTroS , ijXiOtovs, reference here Dem. Or. 45 86, Or. 53 20. There is a for their views to the Stoic cosmopolitanism (frag. 162): 329. of see Zeller p.

01) e\aiov 47. Diog. L. VII. 17, ft&gt;9 Se KVVIKOS rt? $?/cra? avrbv OVK Saxrew. ev ry XrjKvOw irpoayr^a-ev &lt;fyrj dvat- -rre X-Oovra ^kv-roL eKe\eve crice^raa-Oai oTrorepo? elf}

el Kara 48. Athen. IX. 370 C, real ov Trapd&ogov TT}? Ttves OTrore KOI Zijvwv 6 Kirtei)? 6 r^9 Kpdf*,(3r]&lt;; wfjivvov, rbv Kara rrjs KVVOS opicov 2roa? KTi&lt;TT(t&gt;p fjufiovpevos

ce5? ^(a/cpdrov^ KOI avrbs w^vve rrjv KaTnrapiv, "E/z,7roSo9 ev A. cf. L. vil. 32. (frrjortv jrofJLVijfjLovevfjLatnv, Diog. name see Miillcr, : on this doubtful Frag. "Ep-TToSos very Hist. Gr. IV. 403, after whom Kaibel reads "E^vreSo?.

49. Stob. Floril. 98, 68, Zrjvwv eXeyev ovSevos r/ OVTWS o OVTW TreveaOai co9 y^povov. /Spa^i)? yap ftios, rj Kal T? voaovs Se Texvr) fjiaKprj, fjidXXov 77 rr^ ^v^ L. VII. re Ida-aa-Oai Svvapevrj, cf. Diog. 23, fj,r)8ev6s

Tusc. in. 69. So Theophrastus ap. Cic.

50. Stob. Floril. Monac. 197, 6 auro? (Zijvmv) epwrij- a\\o? olo? e L. VII. 23, rt ea-n (/u Xo?, 7&). Diog. e w. TI? ecrrt ^&gt;/Xo? ; a\Xo?, 0?/, 67

&lt;&lt;fXo5 aXXo? So Arist. Eth. N. ix. 4, 5, eart 7p 6 amicus...est aJro9, cf. Cic. Lael. 80 verus tamquam alter idem, ib. 23 and Reid s note.

7 8e 51. Origen adv. Gels. vm. 35, p. 68, Zijvwv 7rp&lt;k ve Se, rbv el-jrovra, d-rroKoi^v edv fir; r^wp^wfiat,, eyca edv ere , /jur/ $i\ov 234 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

52. Diog. L. VII. 23, &iovv&lt;riov 8e rov enrovToi avTw Bid rL avrov fjLovov ov ; ov Siopdoi e&lt;f&gt;r), yap

&lt;roi Tricrreva).

For Dionysius cf. Diog. L. vn. 37, 166, 167. Cic. Fin. v. 94. Athen. vn. 281 D.

53. Seneca de Benef. IV. 39. 1, Quare ergo, inquit, Zeno vester, quum quingentos denarios cuidam promisisset et ilium parura idoneum comperisset, amicis suadentibus ne crederet, perseveravit credere quia promiserat? Perhaps the same circumstance is alluded to in Themist. Or. xxi. 252 Trore rda B, dcfrrjicas SeSaveia/jieva), tcaddrrep Zirjvwv 6

54. L. VII. SovXov eVt Diog. 23, /cXoTr/y, &lt;/&gt;acriV, e/ TOV 8 etVdi yov TO?, ei/xapro fjLOL K\e^rai /cat &apr/vai, fyv).

Seneca however says : nullum servum fuisse Zenoni satis constat (Cons. Helv. 12. 3). To have no slave was a of abject poverty : see the comm. on Catull. XXIII. 1.

55. Diog. L. vn. 23, rutv yvwptfiwv rivos TraiS

/j,efjL(0\a)7ri(TfAevov 6eaadp,evo^, 7rp6? avrov, opw &lt;rov, rov OvfAov rd i

56. Diog. L. VII. 28, 29, ereXevra 8rj ovrax;. eV rfc aTTiwv TrpotreTTTatcre Kal rov Sd/crv\ov 7repieppr?e.

8e rr/v yrjv rfj

i, r p avei? ;

Kal Trapa^prlfia ere\evri)crev, aTroTrvl^af eavrov. Stob.

Floril. VII. 45, Tt-qvwv, co? rjSr/ yepwv u&gt;v Trrataa? Karejrecrev,

" " eiTre, ri pe aveis ; teal eieeXOcov eavrov

. Lucian Macrob. (LXII.) 19, Zr/vwv Be...ov (frao-iv Kal eio-ep%6[j,evov et? n}v eKKXrjaiav Trpo&lt;nrralcravra dva- APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 235

Kal L Kal oiicaSe pe /3oa&lt;? ; viroffrpfyavra rov pocfrr/s T\evTTj(rai ftiov. Both the author of the play is uncertain. wrote with this title, but and plays Tiino- Xauck thinks the words belong to the Xiobe of The situation must theus: cf. Soph. frag. 395 (Bind.). have been similar to the concluding scene of the Oedipus a Coloneus, where Oedipus is summoned by mysterious voice: O. C. 1G2G f.

KOL 6 57. Thcodor. Metoch. p. 812, Kiessling, f^ev ot&ev Ka6o\ov, fyvwv e\eyev, r/\0e, 7rapij\0v, 7T/309 e&gt;e Kal rov {Biov Trepl rwv evravOa Trpajfjbarwv vi. 15. This recalls Marcus Aurelius, e.g. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

1. L. vil. 6 - Diog. 41, Se K\edv0r)&lt;; e fieprj &lt;/&gt;r/&lt;ri 8ia\KTltc6v, prjTOplKOV, IjOlKOV, 7TO\ITIKOV, fywiKUV, #60- \OJIKOV. These are % (w pT]. only subdivisions of the triple

Zenonian : division thus Sia\eKTiicbv and pyropiKov to the same gether occupy ground as \oyitcov (Diog. L. vn. 41 cited in Zeno frag. 6, where Cleanthes is probably meant). For his rhetorical see writings Introd. p. 50. Hirzel n. 170 p. 178 tries to establish two points in connection with this statement, (1) that Cleanthes, unlike the other believed in the Stoics, unity and indivisibility of philosophy but itself, adopted six divisions for the purpose of exposi tion merely, and, (2) that the sixfold division is taken

from Heraclitus, cf. L. IX. 5, ? et? re Diog. T/&gt;et&lt;? \6yovs TOV rov fcai Trepi Trai/ro? rov TToXirucov Kal rov 6eo\oyifc6v. But see Stein, Psych, n. 95, Erkenntnistheorie n. 206. iroXiriKov. Similar is Aristotle s distinction between and &lt;f&gt;p6vT)o-i&lt;; (practical thought) TroXm/o? (Eth. VI. 8), in which both as the chapter &lt;f&gt;p6vrj(ri&lt;f appears general term and as a special subdivision dealing with the individual. The same may be said of r)6in.Qv here. Aristotle divides eo\o-yiKov. Speculative (OewpTjTiicjj) into Philosophy (pva-ixtj, p-aOrj^ariKr), 0eo\oyiicij (Metaph. v. 1, The last-named branch is 10). identical with irpmrrj and is the best of the &lt;j&gt;i\ocro&lt;f&gt;la three, because its subject- THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 237

x. 7. In the Stoic matter is the most honourable, (id. 9). been to follow out this system it would have impossible since their materialism was de distinction in practice, be doubted whether structive of metaphysic, and it may refer to the treatment of 0eo\oytKov does not simply in the book ire 0ewv. The popular religion appearing pi rather than to hymn to Zeus belongs to 0eo\oyiKov



rd a\\a&gt;v eVrl Sta- 2. Epict. Diss. I. 17. 11, \oyiKa

a&gt;&lt;? av Tt9 KpiTiKa real eTrunceirTiica real, eirroi, ^erp^riKa KCti /cal o-rariKa. TI S \eyei ravra ; uovos Xpuo-tTTTTO? See Zeno 4. Zr/vwv not K\edv0r)s ; frag.

evOvs 3. Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 228, (rvrrwais} trepl fa TVTTWVIV Kara /cal Stea-Trjo-aV K\edv0^ pev jdp rrjv

$a&gt;ierv\la&gt;v v e 7 1 Ka ^ & l&lt;* r^ v 7*- Kal &gt; el(Toxn Te % 7 Mwep TVTTOXTLV. ib. 372, el TViracrk eo-riv yvo/j,evrjv rov Kripov yap ev tear Kal etcro^^ TVTTOXTW -tyvxfl "n ^avraaia, rjroi e^o^v Kara ea-riv, o5? 01 Trepl rov K\edv0rjv vop%ov&lt;rtv, rj -v/rtX^v " K.T.\. ib. VIII. 400, K\edv0ov&lt;s fj.ev erepoiojo-tv yiverai uerd Kal Kvpiw dicovovTOS ryjv ela-oxfc egoxfc voovpevrjv II. eirel ovv Kal TO (rv7ro)(nv). id. Pyrrh. 70, 77 ^vyr] eanv n Trvevuaros, faeuoviKov Trvevad ff \eirTouepecrrep6v ov rt? rvrrwaiv etnvoelv ev avrai ovre w? &lt;]&gt;atriv, Bwrjo-erai eVl rwv Kar e^ox^v Kal elcrox^v, (9 a^payiSwv op&fiev, ovre Kara rrjv reparoXoyovuevijv erepoiwriKriv. became a battle Zeno s definition of fyavraala (frag. 7) Cleanthes TuV&xm ground for his successors: explained like that made as referring to a material impression upon de mund. Pfciff., & wax by a seal, cf. Philo opif. p. 114, e /cro? el trw (scil. vm) rd Qavevra icopi&vo-ai, Biayye\\ov(n 238 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

teal 7riSeiKvvvTat rot)? TVTTOVS efcdcrrcav, vo-&lt;j&gt;payi6fj.evcu TO opoiov 7rd0os. K i)pw yap COIKOX;, Se^era* S Sta rwv

al&lt;r6r)&lt;rewv als ra &lt;/&gt;az/racrtas% awfj,ara Kara\afj,/3dvei. however Chrysippus objected that, on this view, if the soul received at the same time the of impression a triangle and a square, the same body would at the same time have different shapes attached to it, and would become at the same time and square triangular (Sext. I.e., Diog. L vn. and he 4550); accordingly interpreted Tvirtoo-i? by erepoiWt? and cf. Cic. I. a\\otWt?, Tusc. 61 an imprimi, quasi ceram, animum et esse putamus, memoriam sig- natarum rerum in mente vestigia? Hirzel n. pp. 160 168 finds here also the influence of Heraclitus, who, he believes, is pointed at in Plat. Theaet. 191 0e p. foil., 9 877 ^ot \6yov eve/ca ev ral&lt;t ^v%als r/fjuav evov tcr/pivov e/cpayeiov /c.r.X. He relies however on the entirely disputed frag. Katcol

ftdprvpes teal d&gt;ra dvOpwTTOK; o&lt;j&gt;6a\nol fiapfiapoix; ^rvx^ which Zeller in exovTwv, interprets exactly the opposite sense to that of Schuster and Hirzel. The point cannot therefore be as regarded established : see Stein, Erkenntnis- theorie n. 734.

cl&lt;ro . = Xiiv. . .^OXTJV concavity. .convexity. Cf. Sext. Pyrrh. I. 92, at yovv ypafai rf) p,kv o-fyei Sotcova-iv etVo^a? KOL efo^a? exeiv, ov prjv /cat ib. I. 120. Plat. rfj d&lt;f&gt;y, Rep. 602 KOI D, ravra Ka^-rrvXa re Kal evOea ev vSaai re

#e&lt;w/iei/ot9 Kal Kal Koi\d re Kal ega, &rj e^e^ot/ra Sid rrjv ra av o Trepi ^p&lt;w/iara ir\dvfjv T?;? -^retu?. 8aKTv\wv. For rings see Guhl and E. T. with Koner, p. 182, the illustrations, and for mjpov see on Zeno 50. frag. Hirzel I.e. shows that the metaphor was even from common, apart philosophic teaching: cf. Aesch. P. V. 789, 8e\roi Qpevwv, etc.

4. Plut. Plac. IV. ol STOHKO/ 11, faaiv orav yevvr)6rj THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

TO wa-rrep 6 (ivOpw-jros ex jyepoviKov /Ltepo? T??? i/ru^s els TOVTO evepyov (or evepyov) et? aTroypafajv fiiav eK(icrri]v rov evvoiwv is referred to Cleanthes The grounds upon which this 39. For have been stated in the Introduction, p. 38, the the further illustration and exposition of the passage note reader is referred to the exhaustive and interesting n. 230 but it be of Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 112, ; may which as well here to set out two quotations from Philo, that Cleanthes make strongly in favour of the hypothesis

" " tabula rasa : cf. Philo, was the originator of the theory 279 3 rrt quod Deus sit immut..!. 9, p. Mang., fyavravia a rwv aia-drjcrewv, Tirn-eocm ev tyvxfj, yap el&lt;rrjyayev eKdcrrv) TOV oliceiov (aa-Trep Sa/cruXto? rt? i} a-fypayis, evaTTepdgaTO rer. div. haer. c. %apaKTrjpa Krjpw &e eoiicws 6 vovs. quis

TO 009 el-rre Ti&lt;? rwv 37, p. 498 Mang., 77 yap ^HX?) Krjpivov,

1. c. Zeno 5. Olympiodorus on frag. 12,

o8u&gt; Trdvra dvvovaa. TOLVVV \eyei OTI re^vr] ea-rlv e^t? II. 17. nam ut Cleanthes voluit, Quint il. . Or. 41, sive, id ordine efficiens. ars est potestas, via, est, 12. Cf. also Cic. Fin. ill. 18, quoted on Zeno frag. is too and Olympiodorus objects that the definition wide, is not a Cic. that it would include (frvats which re^vr] (cf. have that neither N.D. ir. 81), but Cleanthes might replied

is an For ei? cf. on 8ta0e&lt;r Zeno frag. 117, &lt;uo-i5 e(?fc&lt;?. k ev Be ov elvai and Stob. Eel. II. 7, 5 p. 73, 7, et-ei povas

Kal ra? ev rw cnrovai&lt;&gt; ra? ripera?, dX\.d ra? Te%i/a9 d\\oia)0iO-a^ VTTO Kal yevopevas d/iera- dv&pl r?;? aperrj&lt;^

S, olovel yap dperds yiveaOai.

b w9 rd 6. Syrian, ad Ar. Metaph. 892 1423, dpa Plato rot? Belois rovrotf (i.e. Socrates rj Trapd dvSpdatv 240 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Parmeuides and the Pythagoreans) ovre 777309 rrjv p

TU&gt;V T79 ovofjidrwv a-vvrjdeias Traprpyero, a&gt;9 Xpvannros /cat teal ot TrXelovs rwv ^TWIKWV Ap%e8r)[j,o&lt;; vcrrepov a&gt;r/0r)crav...

ov ovS" eicri at t Se firjv evvojj/j.aTd Trap avrols at, G&gt;9

K\edv0Tj&lt;; vcrrepov eipijicev. This difficult fragment has been variously interpreted. Wellmann, p. 480, and Krische, p. 421, think that Cleanthes described the ideas as "subjective Gedanken," in which case the is a fragment restatement of Zeno s view : cf. Zeno 23. Stein frag. discusses the passage at length (Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 293 295): reading vorj^ara, he supposes that Cleanthes words weje OVK elcriv ai iSeac

vor)p,ara. Zeller also p. 85 has vor^ara. However evvorjfjLaTa appears in the Berlin Aristotle edited by Usener, and so Wachsmuth (Comm. II. p. 3) reads. Stein

explains as follows : vorjuara represent abstract ra tionalised knowledge resulting from our experience by the of such agency op06&lt;; \6yos. By vor/fj,ara are we made aware of the existence of the gods (frag. 52), and from these we must distinguish the class conceptions (Gattungsbegriffe) which have no scientific value. Class conceptions (evvoijuara} can never be the criterion of knowledge, since they have no real existence. Cf. Simpl. in Cat. f. 26 C : ovriva rd xoivd Trap avrols \eyerai. But, even assuming that the distinction between vo^pa and eworj/j-a is well founded, which is by no means clear, and that var/para is to be read here, the context in Syrian is conclusive against Stein. The meaning simply

" is, nor again are the ideas in Plato etc. to be treated as

" evvoijpara : in other words, the negative oi)e is no part of Cleanthes statement, but belongs to the commentator. This is abundantly clear from the following words : oi/S

&lt;W9 AyTGmi/09, piyvvs ryv Aoyyivov tcai K\fdv6o ru&gt; vw TrapvtfrtcrTavTO /card ra? evvoijTitcds i 8ea9. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 241

7. Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. 9. 26, 930 P, 332 S, Xe/mi ical yap T(i Karriyoprip,ara Ka\ovcn KXe&lt;w$7;9 Ap^eS?;^o?. in as ex \6KTd : the abstractions contained on the one hand pressed in speech, as opposed to thoughts other rov re and the things thought of on the (f^eaov are votj/jiaros Kai rov rrpdy^aro^}. Neither again they identical with the spoken words, which are corporeal (Sext. can have no real Math. viu. 75). Being incorporeal they existence, and yet the Stoics seem to have hesitated to termino deny their existence altogether. In the ordinary is a subdivision of Xe/croi/. logy of the school KarrjyoprjfjLa and is described as Xe/croi/ e AAtTre? (Diog. VII. 64). From was the this passage, then, we must infer that Cleanthes hrst to restrict rcarrjyoprjpa to its narrower sense by the introduction of the new term Xe/crov. An example of Kar^yoprj^a given by Sextus is d^rivOiov melv (Pyrrh. II. 230), but a new term was required to denote the abstrac for which tion of a complete assertion (e.g. Cato ambulat), insufficient. For Xe/crov Karrjjop rj/j-a was obviously gene 219 222. rally see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp.

: most fact ApxeSr^os Zeller p. 50. The important recorded about him is that he placed the i]yefj,oviKov rov

in the centre of the earth (Zeller p. 147).

drro 8. Epict. Diss. II. 19. 1 4, 6 Kvpievwv \6yos roiovrwv rivwv dfyopiJLWv i}pu&gt;rtjcr0ai (paiverai KOLVIJS yap rrdv roll rpicrl rovroLS 777309 d\\r)\a, rw

aX?/^e9 dvayxdiov eivai, /cal ru&gt; Swarm dovvarov ^ dito\ov6elv, /cat T(3 ovvarov elvai b ovr earcv d\rjOe^ ovr e crraf avvL^wv rrjv ^d^j]V ravrrfv o AioSco/90? nj rwv rrpttiTwv ovolv Trtdavorr/ri avvexpi](Taro TT/JO? o OUT ecrriv rrapdcrraa-iv rov p,r]Sev elvai Svvarov d^Oes our earaL. \OITTOV o p*ev rt9 ravra rTjp^cret rwv ovolv, on ean re n Ovvarov, o ovr ecrriv d\rj0es ovr ecrraf


Kal Bvvara) dBvvarov OVK uKo\ov6el- ov TTUV Be TrapeXrj- \v0o&lt;f eVrr d\rjBe&lt;; dvaytcaiov KaOaTrep oi Trepl KXedvdrjv

&lt;t&gt;epeo-6ai BOKOVO-IV, ol? eVi TTO\V &lt;rvvrjyopr)crev \VTLTT arpos. oi be roXXa Bvo, on Svvarcv r eVrti/ o oiV &lt;lo~Tiv d\Tj6es OVT ea-raf /cat TTUV TrapeXrjXvOos d\7)des dvayKcuov ecrriv Swarta S d&vvarov dicoXovdel. rd 8 eieeiva rpta Tr)pj&lt;rai Bid TO elvai avrwv afujxavov, Koivi]v fj,d^-rjv. Cic. 7. omnia enim vera in 14, praeteritis necessaria sunt, ut dissentient! a Chrysippo placet, magistro Cleanthe, quia sunt immutabilia nee in falsura e vero praeterita possurit convertere.

Three are here mentioned, which are inconsistent with each other in such a way that the of acceptance any two involves the rejection of the third: truth is (1) Every past necessary. (2) That which is can never become possible impossible. (3) A thing may be possible which does not exist and never will exist. Diodorus asserted the truth of and (1) (2) and denied (3) : thus Simplicius ad Cat. 65. 68 describes his followers as avrfj rrj K/3do-i Kpivovres TO Bvvarov. Cic. Fam. IX. 4 to (writing Varro) trepl Svvarwv me scito Kara kio^wpov fcpiveiv. Quapropter, si venturus es, scito necesse esse te venire: sin autem non es, rwv dBvvdrwv est te venire. Cleanthes asserted the truth of and (2) (3) and denied (1). asserted the Chrysippus truth of (1) and (3) and denied

cf. Alexander ad An. Pr. I. 15 (2), p. 34 a 10 Xpvo-iTnros Be \eywv iMtjBev Kw\veiv Kal Bvvaro) dBvvarov fTreatfai K.T.\. Cleanthes maintained therefore that it is and was possible for events to have past happened differently. See further on this Grote s Plato vol. controversy in. p. 495 foil. On 499 Hobbes is p. quoted, who is in agreement with Diodorus. The dilemma itself was originally propounded by Diodorus the Megarian, on whom see Zeller Socratics 252. It went p. by the name of o Kvpievwv \6yos = THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 243

: cf. Themist. Or. II. argument getting the better of others 30 b who mentions it together with 6 Keparlvr)? as the In Luciau Vit. Auct. discovery of Philo or Diodorus. his to teach it as well e. 22 Chrysippus professes ability Aul. Gell. as the depi^wv HXe/crpa and ey/ce/caXu/A/xeVo?. KCLI Cleanthes I. 2. 4, Kvpievovras jjav^a^ovra^; crwpeiras. the wrote a special treatise on subject (Introd. p. 50).

huic eius sub- 9. Quiutil. lust. Or. u. 15. 3335. stantiae maxiine conveniet finitio, rhetoricen esse bene dicendi scientiam. nam et orationis omnes virtutes mores cum semel complectitur, et protinus etiam oratoris, idem valet bene diccre 11011 possit nisi bonus, Chrysippi rinis ille ductus a Cleanthe, scientia recte dicendi (scil. rhetorice).

Kiderliii (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 131, p. 123) conjectures that the word Cleanthis has fallen out after substantiae,

so that, while Cleanthes defined rhetoric as eTnarrjfMrj would be an rov ev \eyeiv, the words rov opdux; \eyeiv Rhet. alteration of Chrysippus. See however Striller usual Stoic definition cf. Sto. pp. 7, S. For the Diog. ovcrav rov ev L. VII. 42, TI]V re p^ropiK^v, e7ricrrr)/j.r)v where rhetoric is \eyeiv Trepl rwv ev Siej;o8(0 \o^wv contrasted with dialectic, since dialectic was also defined the Stoics as e-Trtcmj^r) rov ev ~\.eyeiv by (Alex. Aphr. Top. Erkenntnistheorie n. Sext. 3. 6, quoted by Stein, 210). Emp. Math. n. G.

11011 10. Varro de L. L. V. 9, quod si summum gradum non solum ad attigero, tamen secundum praeteribo, quod lucubravi Aristophanis sed etiam ad Cleanthis [secundum esceridit explained in 7 quo grammatica aiitiqua, quae finxerit verbum ostendit quemadmodum (|uod(i[ue poeta confinxerit declinarit]. 102 24-4 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

11. Athen. XI. 467 d, K\edvOr)&lt;; 8e 6 eV rw &lt;/&gt;t\6cro&lt;o&lt;?

/ueraX?/\/re&&gt;&lt;? ajro TOW Ka-rao-Kevaadinwv irepi (f&gt;r)(rlv ovo-

fj,a&lt;T0ijvai rr/v re 6^piK\eiov KvXttca teal rrjv SetvtdSa. ib. 4)71 b, KXei eV raj #7;9 Trepi /zeTaX?;^e&K crvyypd/j.fj,ari (frtycrt, rd roLvvv evpijfAara, ical oaa -roiaina Ti KOI rd \onrd olov &lt;TTI, 6r)piK\eio&lt;t, Seivids, I0t/cpaTt9, ravra TOI)? 3 [yap] Trporepov (TWLcrTopei evpovras, &lt;f&gt;aiverai t Tt real vvv el 8e TTOICI /J.TJ TOVTO, /J.era^e^XrjKO i / ei /;

pitcpov rovvofj,a. d\\d, tcaOaTrep eiprjTai, ovtc ecrTt Triarev- crat Tf3 TV^OVTI.

fWTa\Ti4/ws : the meaning of this word seems to be that vin. 6. explained by Quintil. 37, superest ex his, quae aliter significent, yLteraX^i/rt?, id est, trausumtio, quae ex alio in aliud velut viam praestat : tropus et varissimus et maxime Graecis improprius, tamen frequentior, qui Centaurum et Chirona, 1/770-01/9 (1 vavs) 6o&lt;\s d^et a? dicunt. Nos quis ferat, si Verrem suem aut Laelium doctum nomiuemus ? cf. Arist. Top. vi. 11, p. 149 a 0. 6r]piK\iov: a kind of drinking cup, said to be named after Thericles, a Corinthian of potter some celebrity, and, to on according Bentley 3, a contemporary of . Welcker, however (Rhein. Mus. vi. 404 foil.), maintains that these cups were so called because were they decorated with the figures of animals. Snvids and are LjHKparls the names given to particular kinds of slippers, the latter of which was so called after the celebrated Athenian general. Cf. Poll. vn. 89, d-jro 8e

TU&gt;V xpija-apevcav l&lt;f&gt;iKpari8e&lt;f, AetvtdSes, A\Ki/3idSia, ~fj,iv8vpi8ia, MiW/aa dtru Mvvdicov. Diod. Sic. XV. 44 ra? re vTroSeaeis rot? cn-pa-u&jTCU? evXvrovs icai KOixfras eVo/T/cre, ra? ^XP 1 r v v ^v tyucpaT&eK air* eVetVou icaXov- in. /Ltei/a?. Alciphr. Ep. 57, evayxos Kpovtwv fva-rdvrwv s ]&lt;f&gt;itcpaTi8a&lt;; poi veovpyels erre/ui/re. Becker Charicles E. T. p. 450, Mliller Handbuch iv. 428. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 245

is expunged by Meineke, whom Wachsm. follows. It seems is read by Casaubou for avvicnopelv. to mean " connoted."

" l 8 tr. if it docs not do the word must have (iij this, cf. Dem. xxx. 10. changed somewhat." For the tense Timocrates and Onetor were both men of substance war OVK dv Bid TOVTO 7 elev OVK evOvs


12. DlOg. L. VII. 134, &OKl 0\WV 8vO, TO TTOLOVV Kdi TO Trda^OV. TO flV OVV TO Se TCOLOVV TOV ev elvai a-TTOiov ova-lav v\rji&gt;, Tr)i&gt; Trjv

TOV deov. TOVTOV dtoiov OVTO, old Tracrr;? ai/Trj \6yov &lt;ydp e/cacrra. oe TO TOVTO... Br)/jiiovp&lt;yeiv TidrjUL 86jfMa 35. dr]s ev TM Trepl cvropwv. See Zeno frag.

13. Tertull. Apol. 21, haec (quae Zeno dixit \6jov in esse cf. Zeno frag. 44) Cleanthes spiritum congerit permeatorem universitatis affirmat. spiritum = Trvev^a. So far as the evidence serves, Cleanthes was the first to explain the Heraclitean Trvp as rrvev^a. While not refusing to admit that Zeno s aether is an emanation from the Godhead (see on frag. 15), he differs from Zeno in identifying God with the sun, as of the ruling part of the universe, and the ultimate source " 68. Hirzel s account the Urpneuma." Stein Psych, p.

: attributes to is inconsistent at p. 211 he Trvevfta Chry- to while at 210 he sippus and restricts Cleanthes Trvp, p. allows that Cleanthes introduced the conception of

permeatorem. Gk. Sir/rceiv Zeno frag. 37, probably indicates that Cl. accepted Kpdcris SL o\wv, cf. Alex. Aphrod. de Mixt. 142 a, r/vwcrdai Tt]v crv/^Trao-av ovcriav, 246 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Sid -rrda^ avrtjf SirjKOVTO*;, ov v&lt;j&gt; (rvvdyerai Kal

b 14. Stob. Eel. i. 1. 29 p. 34, 20, Aioyevr)? Kal Kal 6r)&lt;; OivoTriSrjs (TOV 6eov] rrjv rov Koapov Cic. N. D. i. 37, turn totius naturae menti atque animo tribuit hoc nomen. Minuc. Octav. xix. 10, Theophrastus et Zeno et ct Chrysippus Cleanthes sunt et ipsi multi- formes, sed ad unitatem providentiae omnes revolvuntur. Cleanthes enim mentem modo animum modo aethera plerumque rationem Deum disseruit. Cleanthes teaches the exact correspondence between the microcosm of the individual and the macrocosm of the world: there is therefore in the world a ruling principle analogous to the soul of man. Sext. Math. IX. ware eVet Kal 6 120, KOO-JJLO^ VTTO &lt;ucre&&gt;9 StotKeirai

TroXtyiep?}? KaOea-Tws, elr/ dv rt, ev avrw TO Kvpievov Kal TO TrpOKaTapxo/Aevov rwv Kcvrja-ewv. ovSev 8e Svvarov eivai TOIOVTOV TWV OVTWV 1) TTfV &lt;f)V(J-lV, 1]ri^ 00&lt;f (TTIV. &lt;TTIV

15. Cic. X. D. I. 37, turn ultimum et altissimum atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cin- gentem atque complexum ardorem, qui aether nominetur, certissimum deum judicat. Lactant. Inst. I. 5, Cleanthes et Anaximenes aethera dicunt esse summum Deum in ((quoting support Verg. Georg. n. 325). to According Krische, p. 428430, Cicero has here made a blunder by importing ah explanation of his own into the Greek original 6e6v elvai rov aidepa, and by a confusion of the two senses in which al6t]p is used in the Stoic School re (1)= TrOp xyLKov, (2)= the fiery zone the surrounding world. Cleanthes, as will be presently seen, disagreeing with the rest of the school, regarded the THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 247

in sun and not the belt of aether as the foe^ovucov, or, as the abode of God Acad. n. 126). popular language, (Cic. affirm the Cleanthes therefore only meant to identity This be true, but the of #eo9 and the -rrvp T^VLKOV. may from the word reasoning is not conclusive. Apart there is no reason certissimum, which is not important, to the why Cleanthes should not have attributed divinity in the same manner as ultimus oinnia cingens aether, just feels no he does to the stars, where Krische difficulty. n. 99: the aether emanates from Similarly Stein, Psychol. not God and is a divine power, but the "Urpneuma" himself. the earth which is nltlinum i.e. farthest removed from 67. Cic. X. D. II. in the centre of the universe. Zeno, frag. 41. 117. Diog. vii. 37.

rwv ei&gt; 16. Philod. Trepl eixre/3. c. 9, \6yov rj^ov^evov turn uihil ratione censet esse rra Koa^w. Cic. X. D. I. 37, divinius. is in direct This, it should be remembered, opposition who of the world to the teaching of Epicurus, speaks a-vvea-rwra Eel. as (bvcrei 0X070) IK rwv (ITO/JLWV (Stob.

1 I. 21. 3 p. 183, 10). turn mundum 17. Cic. X. D. I. 37, Cleanthes... ipsum deum dicit esse. Cf. X. D. II. 34. 45. to whom we are to See Krische p. 424426, according here in the first of the three interpret mundum ^senses L. vn. 137, 138, fan Koa^os 6 t 8wK specified by Diog. Eel. Cf. ap. Stob. 770*69 7-^9 TW o\tov oiViW Chrysippus

o 6&gt;eo9, Ka0 8 /&lt;:6a&gt;io9 I 21 5, p. 184, 11, A-eyerat 6X6/30)9 KOI reXeiovTai. In any case, we oi V 8ta/c6&lt;r/tA770-i9 ilverai Cleanthes was a have here a distinct statement that and identified God with matter. The different pantheist, that it to in effect amount to this meanings given *6o&gt;io9 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

be may regarded either as the sum total of all existence, or as the and derivative transitory part of existence : the as Zeller distinction,- however, observes, is only a relative one his remarks (see p. 159). For pantheism as advocated by Cleanthes see Hirzel n. 206. p. Stein, Psychol. p. 67 and n. 98.

18. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 144, ex quo fieri ut quae secundum fatum sunt etiam ex providentia sint. eodem- que modo secundum quae providentiam ex fato, ut Chry- alii vero sippus putat. quae quidem ex providentiae fataliter auctoritate, quoque provenire, nee tamen quae fataliter ex providentia, ut Cleauthes. Zeno had affirmed the identity of et/j-appevrj and Trpovota (frag. 45), but omitted to discuss the difficulties involved in so broad an explanation of fatalistic doctrine. Cleanthes felt the difficulty that KCLKOV could not be said to exist Kara even if it rrpovoiav, existed icad" elp,ap^evrjv. This point will recur in the to Hymn Zeus frag. 46, 1. 17, ov$e TI yiverai, eVt epyov ^Oovl aov BiXa Sal^ov . . .rr\^v oTroaa pefrvo-i /catcoi o-farepya-iv dvoiais, where we shall have to discuss the nature of the solution which he offered. In of the support position here taken up by cf. id. Plut. Chrysippus ap. Sto. Rep. 34, 3, Kara rovrov Se rov \oyov rd teal rraparr\r)&lt;ria epovaev rrepl rfjs aperf}^ fcai ri}&lt;t Kaula^ teal ro ru&gt;v Trepl o\ov re^vcoi Kal rwv i . ..oi&gt;Qev yap eariv aXXta? rwv Kara /i&lt;f/!?&lt;K yiyv&lt;r6at

a\\ ,* K vXdxivrov t ara n]v Kal rov KOLV^V &lt;f&gt;vo-iv id. \oyov. Comm. Not. 34, 5, et Be ov8f rov\d X i&lt;rrov &lt;rri rwv p,epu&gt;v c^iv \X&lt;u&lt;? XX 77 Kara r-qv rov Ato? JovXijo-iv. Chrysippus also defined eipappcvri as Xo7o9 rwv ev TW otoiKovuevuv. Koapw rrpovoia The Sceptic on this head are objections put very clearly in Sext. Pyrrh in. 912. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 24!)

II. 94 Anchor : erratica) 19. Philo do provid. 74 p. (astra nota sunt non solum rationc verum etiam sensu ita movonte nihil lit dicit et Cloanthes, providontia, quae, Chrysippns ad ccrtiorom dis- praetermisit pertinentiiim utilioremque melius osset res pensationem. quod si aliter dispensari tenus mundi, eo modo sumpsisset compositionem, qua nihil occurroret ad impediondum deum. I have taken this fragment from Gercke (Chrysippea p. 708). Much of the Stoic (juae nihil praetermisit.. exposition is a in the 2nd book of Cicero s de Katura Deorum cf. 103 commentary on this. Thus for astra erratica ocitlis adsidue videmus, sine foil, and esp. 104, ergo, ut ulla inutatione et varietate cetera labuntur...caelestia... animus quorum conteinplatione nullius expleri potest cf. M. naturae constantiam videre cupientis. Generally OVK dvev Anton. II. 3, rd TT}? T 1^779 (frvcrews 17 &lt;rv&lt;yK\aia-e(os iravra e/ceWev xal eVtTrXotf//? TWV Trpovoia oioiKOV/JievwV

Kal TO ru&gt; o\u&gt; pel Trpoaean Be TO dvajKalov, KOCT^U) et. avfjLc^epov, ov //.epo? elsewhere a qua tenus... M the same time we find c. 37 chain argument of Chrysippus in Alex, de fato p.

OVK &lt;TTI 8e 118 ov irdvra p-ev eari Ka6" ei^apfievrjv, rov d/c(t)\VTOS Kal (iTrape/JLTrooio-TOS r) KOCT^OV Stoi/c^crt? K.r.X. But inconsistency was inevitable in this matter, existence of evil when Chrysippus could account for the 36. KdKiav oe Ka96\ov by saying (Pint. Sto. Rep. 1) apai See Zeller s ovTe ovvarov eariv OVT e%et /caXctl? dpdrjvai. lucid exposition pp. 176 193.

20. Probus ad Verg. Eel. 6. 31, p. 10, 33, Omnem naturae formam tenui et igitur hanc rerum primum elementa con- inani mole dispersam refert in quattuor tradunt cretam et ex his omnia esse postea effigiata Stoici 250 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Zenon Citiaeus et Speusippus (leg. Chrysippus) Soleus et Cleanthes Thasius (leg. Assius). See on Zeno frag. 52.

21. Hermiae Irris. Gent. Phil. 14, Diels p. 654, dX)C 6 K\edv0r)f d-rro TOV &lt;/&gt;/3earo&lt;? eTrdpaf TT}V K(f&gt;a\r)v Karaye\a (7ov TOV Kal SoypaTOf avTof dvifjia Tdf a\T]6eif dp%df 6eov

Kal . Kal vXrji TTJV pev yfjv /J,eTafta\\eiv elf vowp, TO oe

el&lt;f TOV vSajp depa Se &lt;elf TO Se depa 7rvp&gt; &lt;f&gt;epeo-0ai, frvp Ta ei? Trepiyeia ^wpdv, TJJV 8e ^vx^jv St o\ov TOV Kocrpov

Sitjtceiv, TJ&lt;J fjiepos fj,Te^ovra&lt;f ^/Aa? e^v^ovaBai,. This is &lt;j&gt;ptaTos. explained by the anecdote related by VII. 168, 8e eVi TTC Diog. Sie/3or/0T) &lt;f&gt;i\OTrovia, 05 ye I/T;? wv uyaif wpfATjae p,icrdo(f)opelv Kal VVK.TWQ p,ev ev rot? KTJTTOIS ev tyirXet, p-eO qpepav & rot&lt;? \6yois eyvfiva^eTO odev KOI The same idea is 3&gt;pedvT\7)&lt;; etcXrjOij. kept up by dvifia

" i.e. hauls up." Kal -HIV (iiv yr\v K.T.\. This constant interchange of the various elements is not so strongly brought out in the Stoic system as it was by Heraclitus with his formula travra Cf. Krische pet. p. 387. It is however always cf. C implied, Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 10. 16 p. 129, 18, etc 7T&gt;ct)T77&lt;? p.ev yiyvo/jLevrjs TTJS Trvpos KUTU avaTacriv et? 8 airo depa /Liera/SoX?;?, SevTepas TOVTOV eis vBwp, TptV?/? 8e ert /cara TO fjL(i\\oi&gt; dva\oyov avviaTafjievov TOV i;8aro9 elf 7rd\iv 8 airo Kal yrjv. TavTrjs oiaXvoftevi)? 8ia^eo/j.evr}&lt;; TrpaiTrj fiev yiyveTai %vori$ ei$ vScap, BevTepa 8 e voaTos Kal elf depa, TpiTrj 8e ea-^aTij elf Trvp. Cic. N. D. II. 84, et cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi continuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aer, ex aere aether, deiride retrorsum vicissim ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infirna. Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursus deorsus, ultro citro commeantibus mundi partium coniunctio conti- netur. For Heraclitus see R. and P. 29. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 251

words must bo here: Diels els irvp. Some supplied inserts dvw. is stated. : the reverse concisely T!&gt; Se trip process for the divine origin of the human ^ nepos jurexovras: n. 169. soul see Stein Psych, p. 96,

al K\edv0et 22. Stob. Eel. i. 20, P p. 171, 2, Z^i/aw ovaiav olov eh KOI X/waiWw apeo-ei T&gt;;I/ peTa@d\\eiv dTroTe\ela6at TO T al 7r\tv e/c TOUTOU Toiavrrjv o4. oia ffv. See Zeuo frag. rtjv , -rrporepov

23. Philo, Incorr. Mundi p. 954, perafiaXXav yap ij oiero eh dvayicatoV eh ^v $\6ya, w? eh 4&gt;\oja rj avyijv

8 z w? 6 K\edvOr)s, eh aity^ , XpucrtTrTro?. becomes fire, it Philo is arguing that when everything created but must burn itself out and cannot be anew, his as he is confounding there is no importance in objection,

vov - X an&lt;1 a with &lt;/&gt; ^ the Trvp re^yiKov Trvp arex of the therefore alike express what Numenius, speaking calls i.e. -rrvp T^VIKOV school in general, Trvp aWepwSes 18. What then is the meaning of the (Euseb. P. E. XV. 1). believes that we have here a piece of divergence ? Stein in the views evidence showing a substantial disagreement of the and taken by Cleanthes and Chrysippus eWvpwo-i? reference to the Sun on frag. that &lt;\o is used with (see as a of the finest aether. 24), and avyr] representation he L. For the connection of &lt;Xo with ij\ios quotes Diog. Trach. 693, 0. vii. 27, Aesch. Pers. 497, Soph. T.^1425 71 and the notes). Hirzel s (Stein, Psychologic pp. 70, that he does not explanation is similar (li. p. 211), except Cleanthes : to him, see any reference to the sun according for which was substi spoke of a permeating Trvp irvev^a 13. For cf. : on tuted by Chrysippus but see frag. (j)\6ya in fra. 24. 252 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

24. Stob. Eel. i. 17. 3, p. 1.53, 7, KXea^? Be OVTW Trey? (prjaiv TOV K&lt;t&gt;\oyio-0evTO&lt;; TravTos vvvi&Lv TO ptaov avTov elra irp&Tov, rd e^o^eva aTrotrfievvvaQai 81 o\ov. rov 8e Travrcx; TO e%vypavdei&gt;Tos e&lt;T^aTov TOV Trvpos, O.VTL- TVTrt avTw iaavTos TOV f^eaov, rpeVeo-^at 7rd\iv et? Tovvav- Tiov, eW o vTto Tpe-iropevov dvw Kal $r)&lt;r\v av^eaBai apx^- Bat TO o\ov K Suiicoo-fieiv al TOICIVTIJV TrepioSov alel real

SiaKoo-prjo-iv TTOIOV^VOV TOV ev TTJ TWV o\u&gt;v ova-la TOVOV

7rav6&lt;T0at. M wa-rrep yap evos TIVO? TO. pepr) irdvra jwereu ev To&lt;f xaiiKovvi xpovois, OVTW teal TOV o\ov Ta neprj, wv Kal ra ^wa Kal TO. ovTa &lt;f&gt;VTa KadtJKOva-i /cat -^povo^ &lt;f&gt;VTat. rive* cvjoi? oa&lt;rirep \6yoi T(uv pepwv et? o-rrepua o-i/i/toi/re? piyvvvTat Kal avQis Buuepivovreu yivopevwv TWV pepwv, oi/rw? e| e^6? re -rrdvra yiveadai Kal etc -rrdvTwv et? li/ &lt;rvyKplve&lt;r0ai, 6oa&gt; Kal av^cavws Bie^iovcrrjf Tr}&lt;; TrepcoSov. The explanation of the first part of this difficult ment frag to be as follows : appears When everything has been set on fire and the tendency of all things to become absorbed in the irvp dei&ov has been satisfied, the reaction commences in the centre, and spreads towards the ex tremities until everything except the outer rim is in a watery mass. Seneca, N. m. 13. Q. 1, nihil relinqui... aliud, igne restincto, quam humorem. In hoc futuri mundi latere. Then spem the remaining portions of the original fire, concentrated in the sun (Stein p. 71), in of resistance from spite the centre, begin to exert their creative influence, and their by ever-increasing activity, the elements and the world are formed. Phenomenal existence, then, is possible only when the tightening and slackening influences are in or so equilibrium nearly ; the exclusive of predominance either destroys the balance of the universe. The centre of the o-^atpo? is always readier to admit the of loosening tension, while the bracing in- THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 258

which knits the frame vigorating vivifying power, together of the universe as of the individual, is in fullest sway in avca the parts at the circumference (hence av^eaBai}. ZiaKca- This is the theory of tension as applied to the its statement constitutes the most [jirio-LS, and important contribution made by Cleanthes to Stoicism. A difficulty in the above exposition remains to be stated: Why is there no created world in the period between eWupcoo-^ as there must then be a time when the and euypw&lt;m, two influences are of equal strength ? The answer, perhaps, is an ever- is that during the whole of this period there as the fire of the eWu- increasing slackening of tension, of tension poxri? is gradually extinguished, and slackening life death v. 24 the produces not but (Plut. plac. etc.) ; creation of the world only starts when TO ea-^arov rov There is also a Trvpcs rpeTrerai etf rovvavriov. divergent- world be view, namely, that the destruction of the may compassed by /cara/cXuoyio? as well as by ercTrvpwcri.s. the tran This implies that our world can exist during sition towards egvypwais. Cf. Sen. X. Q. in. 29. 1 and Zeller Heraclit. Alleg. Horn. c. 25, p. 53, quoted by p. 109, 1. Schol. on Lucan vn. 813 eKTrvpcaais, quam secuturam over fccnaK\v(T^ovs adserunt Stoici, seems to have been looked, but is of doubtful import. Stem s account of the 32 is but I 8 ia K 6 a/j.rj a t? (Psych, p. foil.) radically different, do not see how it can be reconciled with this passage : a of (1) the creation of the world is due to slackening TO tension in the original fiery substance, and (2) ea^arov

" " TOV Trvpoi is what remains of the original Urpneuma after the four elements have been formed, whereas ac cording to Cleanthes the creation of the world only begins when this remnant of fire begins to exert its influence. Hirzel discusses the present passage at some length

II. He insists (Untersuchungen p. 124134). strongly 254 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

that TO eff^arov meansextremum (das Feuer des Umkreises)

and not reliquum, and that Philo Trepl &lt;#. KOO-^OV 18, 6 (fjiera rrjv eKTrvpwaiv eTreiSav veos xooyio? fieXX-rj 8rj-

fj,iovpyelo 6ai crvftTrav pev TO irvp ov crftevvvrai, Trocrr) 8e Tt? avTov poipa VTroXei-rrerai) follows Chrysippus and not Cleanthes. It would seem, however, that the distinction is not important, as ea-^arov must in this case be both extremum and reliquum. Further on he suggests that Cleanthes did not maintain the doctrine of the four

elements, but cf. frag. 21. Two possible anticipations of the tension theory have been noticed in Zeno s fragments, but the passage in frag. 56 is probably spurious, while in frag. 67, even if reivea-Qai is sound, Zeno is confessedly dealing with another point, viz. the explanation of how the separate parts of the KOCT^O^ are kept in one solid mass and are not scattered into the void. why they Ogereau p. 10 attributes the introduction of ToVo? to Zeno, and the of Cleanthes but he depreciates performances (p. 19) ; insists throughout too strongly on the unity of the school, without considering its historical development. b cf. Stob. Eel. I. 3 a-rro ^&lt;rov, 21, p. 183, 3, y^ Se ttp^acrdai rijv yevtcriv rov KOCT/J-OV, Kadajrep airo rcevrpov, TO tcevrpov. s, cf. Diog. L. vii. 135, 136 quoted on Zeno frag. 52.

Tpirojivov. MSS. corr. Canter. TOV...TOVOV. The MSS. have TOV...TOVOV. The reading in the text is due to Mein., whom Wachsm. now follows, he although formerly (Comm. n. p. 11) kept the MSS. reading, removing the colon after o\ov and inserting commas after /cat and rovov. There is some mistake in Stein s note on this point, Psychol. n. 41.

&lt;K Cf. Zeno = o-irtpjiaTwv. frag. 54 Cleanth. frag. 22, and see Hitter and Preller 402. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 255

was unnecessarily suspected by the older edd. of Stobaeus. The conj. TOVOL is tempting, but Wachsm. IX. eVt quotes Marc. Aurel. 1, wp^aev (?) c/wcrt?) r?;ySe rrjv

8iaKoo-/jLri(Tiv av\\a/3ovad nvas Xo7ou? rwv eao^evwv K.T.\. The best parallel is Zeno frag. 106, which puts the text rti/e? rwv beyond dispute. \6&lt;yoi f^epwv certain proportions of the constituent parts of the soul. Mein. yivo|ivo)v P. jLvof^evo)v F, whence ryevo/jievwv Hirzel II. Wachsm. Diels : but the present, accepted by

p. 126, seems preferable.

els is bracketed b Diels and Wachsm.

25. Pint. Comm. Not. 81, 10, en -roivvv e 6 KXeaj /cat ra \oL7ra $??&lt;? rfi ercTrvpuxrei \eyei r&gt;]v cre\.i)vriv

rov i jravra /cat ciarpa j\ioi&gt; e^o^oiatcreiv eaurw, p,era{3a\elv

the As the sun is, according to Cleanthes, to exist rov Koafjiov, the Trvp deL^wov may be supposed authorities cited there in its purest form (cf. the by and to this the Zoller, Stoics p. 204*, 3, Krische p. 386), moon and the other stars will be assimilated at the

MSS. have corr. eo|j.ou6&lt;riv. e^o^oiwaai Zeller, p. 16-5, n.

26. Stob. Eel. I. 15, 6" p. 146, 19, TWV ^.TWLKWV TO iTvp (iTref^^varo /cco^oetSe ?. Presumably this refers to the fire of the revolving aether, for the doctrine appears to be borrowed from the a 01 dirb Pythagoreans cf. Stob. Eel. I. 15, 6 p. 146, 14, \\v6a^/opov...^ovov TO (ivwrarov Trvp tcwvoeiSes. This is supposed to refer to the (Zeller, pre-Socratics,

I. cf. infra p. 466 n. 2), frags. 32, 33.

27. Pint, de facie in orbe lunae c. 6, 3, wa-rrep 250 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

(aero oelv K\edvdr)&lt;; TOV ^.ap,Lov aVe/3eia&lt;?

TrpocrtcaXeiadai Tois"E,\\7)vas, cJ&lt;? KIVOVVTO. TOV Kocrp,ov rrjv

OTI &lt;ra&gt; etrTiav, (f)aiv6^eva aoi^eiv dvrjp ejreipdTO, peveiv TOV ovpavov V7roTi0efj,evo&lt;;, e%e\iTTea0ai be Kara \ogov KVK\OV TIJV yijv, a/xa teal Trepl TOV avrJ?9 d ^ova This comes from the treatise Trpo? Int rod. p. 51.

Ap(o-rapxov : the celebrated . For the f here attacked cf. Sext. i theory Math. X. 174, o ye p.i}v rrjv

rov tc6(Tfj,ov Kivrjcriv ai/eXoi/re? TTJV oe yfjv Kivtcr6ai Sod- ol o-ai^Tf?, a;? Trepl Apia-rap^ov TOV /jLa6rjfj,aTLKOv K.T.\. k Stob. Eel. I. 3 25, p. 21^, 2, Apio-rap^o? TOV r)\iov icrTr)(ri

fj,Ta TWV cnr\avwv Trjv Se yfjv Kivticrdai Trepl TOV i)\t,aicov KVK\OV. (This also illustrates Kara XofoO KVK\OV.) It appears however to be doubtful whether Aristarchus this propounded view otherwise than hypothetically : cf. Plut. quaest. Plat. vm. 1, 2, 3. as For the ao-ef3ci n-poo-KaXtwrflai. ypa&lt;j)rj acre/Set a? see Attischer Process ed. Lipsius, pp. 3G6 375, and cf. the case of as well as Anaxagoras (ib. p. 370). Every ypa&lt;f&gt;rf, an civil ordinary action, commenced with the Trpoa/cX^cri? or writ of summons (ib. p. 770 f.).

i&lt;rriav : alluding to the central position of the earth.

Aesch. 1056 ecrrta? Aen. II. Ag. /j,e&lt;roiJ,&lt;pdXov, Virg. 512 aedibus in mediis nudoque sub aetheris axe ingens ara fuit. It is possible that Cleanthes had in his mind the Pythagorean description of the central fire as eo-rt a TOV iravTos: see Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 247 A, pevei yap

KtTTta eV 6ewv OIKO) p-ovrf.

" TO, : to for 4&gt;atvofjiva orwjtiv save appearances:" which phrase see Prof. Mayor in Journ. Phil. vi. 171.

28. Euscb. P. E. xv. 15. fr. 29 7, Ar..Did. ap. Diels, oe p. 465, rjyenoviKov TOV Koa-pov K\tdvBei fiev tfpea-e TOV THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 257

Kat 7j\iov elvat old TO /jLeyccrrov TWV aarpwv virap-^eLV TWV

Kal eviavTov TTOIOVVTO, real ra&lt;? aA,\a&lt;? elementis Censorin. frag. 1, 4, et constat quidem quattuor solem terra aqua igne aere. cuius principalem quidam e vn. 139. Stub. Eel. I. 21. G putant, ut Cleanthes. Diog. o 2r&)i:o9 ev elvai TO p. 187, 4, K\eai/$?79 77X16) e&lt;fyri&lt;rv Acad. II. rj^e^oviKov TOV Koa^ov. Cic. 120, Cleanthes, Zenonis qui quasi majorum est gentium Stoicus, auditor, solem domiuari et rerum potiri putat. There is no warrant whatever for Krische s suggestion wahrscheinlich that Cleanthes ") (p. 435), probably (" adopted the Heraclitean theory of the daily renewal of other the same the sun : everything points the way. At time, the important position assigned to the sun was probably due to his Heraclitean studies (see Introcl. Heraclitus himself did not maintain p. 50), for, though this doctrine, we read of the Heraclitean school in Plat. /cdovra Cratyl. 413 B, rov rj\iov...oiaiovTa Kal eirnpoTreveiv TO, ovra. Cf. Pliny, N. H. n. 12 (cited by Hirzel, n. p. 138).

1 a 29. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 3 p. 211, 18, K\edv6r)^ 8e TWV voepov TO eK OaXaTTijs TOV i]\iov. Tcepl Tporrwv Kara TO (pacrt SidaTTjfJia Trjs viroKei^evr]^ Tpo(j&gt;&gt;]&lt;; * * * 8 eVrl r;? rrjv dvaOvpiaGiv e-mve^eTai. diro Oat $e TOV rj\iov KLvov^evov e\ifca ev TTJ afyaipq, TOV ecrri- latj/jiepLvov e-rri re dpKTOV Kal VOTOV, drrep Trepara non eisdem T7/9 e\iKos. Cic. N. D. ill. 37, Quid enim? vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nee permanere ullo inodo posse, nisi alitur: ali autem solem, lunam, alia marinis 1 reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, eamque causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat nee longius no progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, lougius discedat a cibo. Macrob. Sat. I. 23, 2, ideo enim sicut et


Posidonius et Cleanthes affirmant, solis meatus a plaga, quae usta dicitur, non recedit, quia sub ipsa currit , qui terram ambit et dividit. Wachsmnth regards Cic. and Stob. 11. cc. as containing distinct two fragments (Comm. II. fr. phys. 7 and 8), but the in is passage Cic. only a verbal expansion of jrepl

Tpo7rwv...Tpo(f)ij&lt;i. Wachsm. does not cite Macrob. 1. c. This is one of the points which attest Cleanthes study of K Heraclitus, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 1 p. 239, 5. Hirzel con

cludes (11. p. 122) from the evidence, that Cleanthes, like Heraclitus, spoke only of the feeding of the sun by exhalations, and not also of that of the moon and stars.

K.T.\. cf. Plut. II. 20. OtWa&lt;? avajjijxa plac. 3, 7T6/H T^X/Of , avafjifia voepov eV OaXd-rr^. Diog. VII. 145, Be rd e/ATrvpa ravra (i.e. the sun and moon) Kal TO, a\\a rov CK ucrrpa /j,ev i]\iov rrjs fj,eyd\tj&lt;; 6a\dr- ovra whereas the is r?7&lt;? voepov dvapfia, moon fed with fresh water, and is mixed with air. Chrysippus ap. Stob.

Eel. I. 25. rov 5, ij\tov elvat TO adpOLO-dev e^a^a voepov eic rov T^&lt;? 6a\aTTii&lt;; dva6v/j.idfj,aTos. Wachsmuth adds Galen, hist. phil. c. LVIII. p. 277 K., coKeavov Be Kal TTJV OdXaao-av

T&&gt; rj\iw rpo^jjv TTJV avrov vjporrjTa evovaav ev Kal TTJV 760)877 dvadv/j,ia(7iv. o-n-wv: a necessary correction by Bake for the MSS.

MSS. 4&gt;a&lt;ri Wachsm. suggests ^70-4.

l&lt;rri: there is a lacuna after this word. Wachsmuth n. formerly (Comm. p. 10) supplied Kal 7^7 coll. Plut. plac.

" II. 23. but he : 3, now writes lacuna fuit in Aetii exemplo, cum Ps. Plutarcho Stobaeus Plut, quod legit ; ^ 777 add.;

Aetius Kal Qd\a&lt;rcra vel simile rj /j,ejd\rj scripsit," quoting the passages cited above.

i- e - with the &lt;rx&gt;-yKaTa4&gt; p(rflai aether, which is itself in motion. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 259

cf. L. VII. rov Be J Diog. 144, )\ioi&gt; \oi}v rrjv Tropeiav Troiela Bai 8m rov a)8iafcov KVK\OV, o/iotw? teal T)}V aeXtjvrjv e^iKoeiSr;. The discovery of the inclination of the earth s orbit to that of the sun is attributed by some to Anaximander, and by others to Pythagoras (Zeller, pre-Socratics I. p. 455, 2).

30. Cic. N. D. ii. 40, atque ea (sidera) quidem tota esse ignea duorum sensuum testimonio confirmari Cleanthes putat, tactus et oculorum. nam solis et candor illustrior est quam ullius ignis, quippe qui immenso mundo tain longe lateque colluceat, et is eins tactus est, non ut tepefaciat solum, sed etiam saepe comburat. quorum nisi esset " " cum ueutrum faceret, igneus. ergo," iiiquit, sol igneus sit Oceanique alatur humoribus, quia nullus ignis sine pastu aliquo possit permanere, necesse est aut ei similis sit igni quern adhibemus ad usum atque ad victum, aut ei, qui corporibus animaritium continetur. atqui hie noster ignis, quern usus vitae requirit, confector est et consu raptor omnium idemque, quocumque invasit, cuncta disturbat ac dissipat. contra ille corporeus vitalis et salutaris omnia conservat, alit, auget, sustinet sensu- que adficit." negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol utri similis sit. cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant et in suo quaeque genere pubescant. quare cum solis ignis similis eorum ignium sit, qui sunt in corporibus animantium, solem quoque animantem esse oportet, et quidem reliqua astra, quae oriantur in ardore caelesti, qui aether vel caelum nominatur. testimonio: this passage illustrates two characteristics, which are specially prominent in Cleanthes: (1) his activity in the investigation of the of natural science, and (2) his confidence in the results of sense obser vation. Stein, Psychol. p. G9, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 319. 172 2GO THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

Oceani: cf. frag. 29.

ei...iyni: for the two kinds of fire cf. Zeno frag. 71.

corporeus : see on frag. 42.

aether vel caelum : hence in Zeno frag. Ill Zeus is identified with caelum in place of the usual gloss aether.

31. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 8. 48. 674 P. 243 S., OVK B ovroc TOV dveyvwaav KXedvBr/v &lt;j)i\6(ro(j)ov, 09 TOV /ca\i ev rat? aVaroXat? Tr\iJKTpov Jj\iov &lt;ydp ra? at"ya? oiov TC\r}aGwv TOV tcocrfjiov, elf TTJV

TO e /c Be TOV rjKiov cnjfjiaivei teal TO. Tropeiav &lt;/&gt;ft5&lt;? (iyei,

\oi7rd cicrTpa.

irXrjKTpov: Krische p. 400 connects this with the Stoic identification of Heracles with the sun. Thus Heracles is

TO Tr\TjKTiKuv Kal SiaipeTiKov (Plut. de Iside c. 40), and his name is derived from dr/p and K\acrt&lt;? by Porphyrius ap. Euseb. P. E. III. p. 112 c, and ap. Laur. de Hens. IV. 46. is Lyd. TrXrjtcTpov properly "any striking instrument": hence lightning is described as TrXrjtcTpov Si6{3o\ov TTupo? reepavvov (Eur. Ale. 128): cf. especially orac. c. fin. Plut. de Pyth. 16 ad vo-Tepov fjuev dvedrfKav TU&gt; dew ^pvcrovv eTrio-TjjcravTes, to? eoi/ce, ^.

\eyovTi Trepl T^? \vpas, i}v dpfjbo^eTai, Zrjvos eveiSrjs

\Q)V, Tcaa-av dp^r/v Kal reXo? &lt;Tv\\aftcav e^ei Be \ap-7rp6v Eur. Tr\fjKTpov r)\iov &lt;/&gt;ao9 (quoted by Hirzel, p. 181). navwv Suppl. 650, \a/j,7rpd fjuev dfCTis, r/\iov cra&lt;prjf. Sandys on Bacch. 308, and Milton s " With touch ethereal of s fiery rod."

32. Stob. Eel. I. 26. T p. 219, 14, K\edv0r)&lt;; TrvpoetSi) TI}V creXrfvrjv, TTiXoetS?; 8e TW cr^fJiaTi.

irvpotiSii: but the fire of the moon is not so pure as that of the sun, being fed with grosser matter. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 144, elvai Be TOV p.ev ijXiov elXifcpives 7TU/D...145, jewBecr- Tepav Be TTJV cr\yjvr}v. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 261

have corrected Lipsius ^ : the MSS. 7T7;Xo8; by to nn- II. who also TroXvei^, (Phys. Stoic 13), suggests he is followed the editors XoetS?;, in which correction by of this word as of Stobaeus. But what is the meaning

" " felt and ? In this connection like (L. applied to shape which Zeller translates "ball-shaped," S.) is nonsense. from other considerations, it is improbable because, apart not the moon as is almost certain that Cleanthes did regard There remains Hirzel s rendering: spherical. suggested

" a The for such shaped like skull-cap." only justification in the Heraclitean an is to be found a-KaQoet&fc l c for no can be derived (Stob. Eel. I. 26. p. 218, 8), support or from 7ri\^aTa depo? (Anaximaiider) ve$os Treirikripevov refer to clouds. (Xenophanes), which simply densely packed reads Ktavoet&i] which gives the Krische, p. -435, boldly is is not close to the MSS. It required sense, but enough that the true is the suggested therefore reading ^XioeiSrj, the H. There n being due to dittography of following Cleanthes or his would be no obscurity in this, assuming described the sun as Ktovoei^ epitomiser to have previously the The other Stoics consistently describe (cf. frag. 33). k 1 moon as a^cupoei^ (Stob. Eel. I. 26. l I p. 219, 20, 26).

a O i aXXoi 33. Stob. Eel. I. 24. 2 p. 205, 25, pev Se icwvoeiSels &lt;$Tcoiicol&gt; afyaipiicovs CLVTOVS, K\edv0r)s Pint. II. 14. 2. Galen, hist. phil. (scil. the stars). plac. KwvoeiSels rot)? aVrepa?. c. 13 (XIX. 271 K.), KXeaz/flr/? avrovs TO?)? Achill. Tat. p. 133 KXeaz/^? (sc. acrrepa?) aff. IV. e etv Theodoret, Gr. Cur. KuvoeiBes X ^% &gt; &lt;t&gt;W-

/cwz oeiSet? 8e K\edv0rj&lt;i 6 Srtot/co?. 20, p. 59. 10, Cleanthes attributed a conical shape to fire, sun, moon, the sun and and stars. There is no direct evidence as to authorities that moon, but it is a fair inference from the It is moreover, that they also were conical. probable, 262 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Cleanthes was moved by the consideration that Heraclitus described sun, moon and stars as boat-shaped ((TfcafoeiStJ), c cf. Stob. Eel. i. 25. 1- 26. l , Diog. L. ix. 9. Krische is apparently right in inferring that the same is true of the cf. Plut. world, plac. II. 2. 1, oi fiev ZraiKol &lt;r&lt;j&gt;aipoeiS&gt;J rov Ko&lt;r/j,ov, a\\oi oe oi Be KatvoeiSij, a&gt;oei8f).

34. Plut. plac. II. 16. 1, Az/aayopa9 Kal KOL KXedvdrjs djro dvaroXwv eVi Sv&lt;r/j,d&lt;; fapecrdai irdvras rov&lt;f do-repas. Galen, hist. phil. c. 13, XIX. 272 K. A. teat, A. Kal K\. drro dvaro\&lt;av i? Sfoyia? ^epeaOai rot)?

iravras in Plut. includes apparently d-rrXavrj aarpa as well as the TrXavajpeva: the former are said &lt;rv^7repi- (frepecrdai, TW o\w rd Se tear ovpavca, TrXavcafieva I8ia&lt;; tcivei&lt;r0ai Ki^ae^ (Diog. VII. 144). Full information on the ancient theories as to the rising and setting of the stars will be found in Achill. Tat. Isag. cc. 37, 38.

35. Gemin. elem. astrom. p. 53 (in Petau s Uranologia) f \ \ & vrro , ^ , rrjv dtaKe/cav/juev^v %abvr}v rives rwv ap-^aiwv aTre^- vavro, &v can Kal 6 K\edv0r)&lt;; Srtui/co? ^tXoo-o^o?, VTTO- KexvaOai /Ltera^t) r&lt;av rpoTriKwv rov wKeavov. This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth s collection (fr. 27, Comm. n. cf. phys. p. 14): frag. 29 and Macrob. i. 2 there cited. 23, Krische, p. 393, refers this to the in fluence of Zeno s studies on Homer. "Hiernach mochte ich glauben, dass Zenon dort auch den Homerischen Ocean aufgesucht und dadurch den Kleanthes und Krates auf- gefordert habe, dieselbe Betrachtung zu erneuern." Cf. Achill. Tat. c. 89: Isag. 29, p. There are five zones: Arctic, Antarctic, two temperate (evKparoi), pla Se BiaKKavfievr}. / o rovrwv 7rao-(3v cariv and pecrr) rov Oepivou rpo-n-iKov rov ro&ovrov xtipepii&gt;ov rpoTTiKov yap TrXdros e%et, THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 263 ocrov Kal 6 7/Xio? Trepiep^eTat,. Ka\elrai 8e StafcefcavfAevi] Sid TO Trvpwbris elvai, TOV i}\iov Si avTrjs TT/V rropeiav del

Troiovfievov. Posidonius, as we learn from ib. 31, p. 90, made six zones, dividing the torrid zone into two.

36. Tertullian do An. c. 5, vult et Cleanthes non solum corporis lineamentis, sed et animae notis simili- tudinem parentibus in filios respondere, de speculo scilicet inorum et ingeniorum et adfectuura : corporis autem simi- 5 litudinem et dissimilitudinem capere : et animam itaque corpus similitudini vel clissimilitudini obnoxiam. item corporalium et incorporalium passiones inter se non corn- municare. porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso ictibus, vulneribus, ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae, cui adflictae cura, angore, amore, coaegrescit, per detri- 10 mentum scilicet vigoris, cuius pudorem, et pavorem rubore at(]ue pallore testetur. igitur anima corpus ex corporalium passionum commutatione. Nemesius, Nat. Horn. p. 32, 6 KXez $?; ? Toiovde TrXeKei &lt;TvX\.oyiafji6v ou ^ovov rot? Kara TO a\X,d 15 &lt;&gt;ri&lt;j\v o/AOiot &lt;yovevo~i &lt;yivb[Jbe9a crdo/Jia

Kal Kara tr]v -^v^rj^ rot? TrdOeai, rot? -ijdecn, rals &e TO o/jioiov Kal TO dvo^otov, ov^l Be

. .ert Se 6 ovoev dcrw- dpa i] ^Irv^. K\edv9r]s (f)ijo-iv

rw/jiaTi, ovSe dcrw^ciTW crw/J,a, d\\d

Be 7 T&&gt; VOO~OVVTI 20 o~v{i7rda-%ei T] "^^X ) crcoyuart

Kal TO J awp^a Tfj ~^v^j alo"^vvof ievrj&gt;f &lt;yovv Kal epvOpov yiveTai (j)o/3ovfj,evr]&lt;? ca^pov croo^a dpa r] fyvxfi. Tertullian de An. c. 25, unde oro te similitudine animae quoque parentibus de ingeniis respondemus secun- dum Cleanthis testimonium, si non ex animae semine 25 educimur 1

The Nemesius passage is regarded as a distinct frag ment from the two places in Tertullian by Wachsmuth (Comm. II. fr. phyp. 20, 21), but, as Hirzel has observed, they 264 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

refer to obviously the same original. Stein s on this passage should be consulted (Erkenntnistheorie, n. 736). The mind is a tabula rasa at birth, in the sense that it no possesses definite knowledge. But through the seed a capacity for knowledge, and ethical tendencies in particular, are transplanted from father to son: see also Introd. p. 38 f. 5. The ordinary punctuation of this passage puts a full at with no stop animam, stop after capere, but this gives no satisfactory sense. Mr Hicks would strike out the words capere et, remove the stop after animam, and alter obnoxium to obnoxiam. The latter change, which is a decided I have improvement, adopted, and, by putting the stop after capere, the required sense is obtained with out further alteration. 15. YV&lt;VO-I: cf. Cic. Tusc. I. vult 79, enim (Panaetius). . . nasci declaret animos, quod eorum similitude, qui pro- etiam in creentur, quae ingeniis, non solum in corporibus appareat. The child receives through the seed the same of tension grade in the soul as his father, and, as the of the soul activity depends on its inherent tension, the mental resemblance between children and parents is explained. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 130, 131. 16. ifOccn: Wachsmuth reads Ween from the Oxf. ed. of 1671, but cf. Zeno, frag. 147, KaraX^-rrrov dvai TO ^#09 ef

Sia0 o-on: cf. on Zeno, frag. 117. 17. o-wjiaros: agreeably to Stoic tenets, for likeness and unlikeness cannot be predicated of the non-existent, cf. Zeno, frags. 34 and 91. 19. the (rvjiird&lt;rxi: o-vfiTrddeta fjLepdov is an indication to the Stoic of the ZVOHTK; of a body: this is true of the cosmos no less than of the individual. Sext. Math. IX. 79, who continues (80), eVt Se rwv rjvw^evwv a-v^Tradeia rt&lt;? ecrriv, THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 265 el ye 8atCTV\ov refjivop^evov TO 6\ov crvvSiarideTai, crw/^a. o id. V. ovoe r)va)p. vov roLvvv eo~T\ arw^a KOI /COCT/AO?. 44, TO TO yap OVTO&gt;S rjvwrai Trepie^ov cJ? dvOpwrnvov crw^a, ov T LVCL, TpoTTOv TTJ KetydXf) vTTOKeifieva fJ&gt;epTj crv/jL7rda"^ei

OVTO&gt; Kal teal rot? VTroKeip-evois i] /ce^aX?;, rot? eTrovpaviOiS

TO, eTriyeia. Cic. N. D. ill. 28. The question as between body and soul is discussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian Cf. Plat. Phaed. 83 D. M. Aurel. IX. 9.

37. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 7, p. 317, 15, UvOayopas, Am- ayopas, TlXaToiv, ^.evo/cpaTTj^, KXedvdr}^ OvpaOev elcncpi- vecrOaL TOV vovv.

This is an obscure statement which cannot be under stood in the same manner of the various philosophers mentioned. Thus, as regards Pythagoras, it is simply a deduction from the theory of (Zeller, pre- for Xenocrates we Socratics I. p. 479): while Plato and may understand a reference to the previous existence of the soul before its entrance into the body (Zeller, Plato, is Aristotle s p. 596). The terminology however (de TOV Generat. An. II. 3, p. 736 b 27, XetVerat Se vovv JJLOVOV BvpaOev eTreLcrievai Kal Oelov elvat fjiovov ovdev yap avTov whose doctrine is Tfj evepyeia Koivwvel a-w^aTUc-i} evepyeia), the widely different from Plato s. As regards Cleanthes, and Stoics in general do not distinguish between vovs

: latter is transmitted in the fyv% n (see on Zeno, frag. 43) the seed, developed in the womb, and brought to maturity by the action of the outer air, so that it is hard to see in what sense the "^v^tj dvpaOev elo-KpiveTai. Perhaps meaning is that the reasoning powers (vovs} are founded on external impressions, from which Knowledge is derived: 163 cf. Zeno, frag. 82. Stein, however (Psychol. p. foil.), believes that by Ovpadev is indicated the action of the outer air on the embryo at birth, whereby the -v^u%?) is 26G THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

out of a mere In this case Cleanthes developed &lt;f&gt;va-i&lt;;. the doctrine of Hirzel anticipated Chrysippean 7repn/rut&lt;r. this (il. p. 156 foil.) uses passage in support of his im probable view that Cleanthes maintained a division of the soul: he sees here also the influence of Heraclitus. Cic. N.D. n. 18 might suggest a more general view, that the point referred to is the material nature of the soul as Trvevpa, but the context in Stobaeus is against this. = 38. Zeno, frag. 83. There is a curious contradiction in Stein s Psychologic on this point. At p. 107 and p. 155 he cites and upholds the evidence which distinctly attributes to Zeno the doctrine of the soul being fed by exhalations from the blood. at Yet p. 165 he suggests that this innovation was made by Cleanthes. = 39. Zeno, frag. 87. = 40. Zeno, frag. 88.

41. L. VII. Diog. 157, K\edv6rj&lt;; fiev ovv

CrtTTTTO? e Ta? TU&gt;V

Cf. R. and P. 409. Cic. Tusc. I. 77, Stoici diu mansuros aiunt animos, semper negant, cf. Zeno frag. 95. The teaching of Cleanthes is everywhere more materialistic than that of Chrysippus, who was no doubt anxious to vindicate the purity of the soul essence : see Stein Psychol. n. 279 and pp. 145 147, who compares their divergence as to the nature of rvTrwa-K; and the "Urpneuma" (&lt;f&gt;\o% and avyrj). Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 3 follows the account of Chrysippus, TJJV 8e ^fv^tjv yevvrjTr/v re teal OVK evdus Be rov aTraAAa- (frdaprrjv Xeyovcriv cru&gt;/^aTO&lt;f yeicrav fydeipecrdai, aXX eVi/tei eti/ rtvdf ^povovs K.a.6 eavrijv TYJV THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 267 crecos TGOV irdvTwv, TTJV Se rwv dfypovwv Trpos TTOCTOU?


42. Cic. X. D. II. 24, quod quidem Cleanthcs his etiam argumentis docet, quanta vis insit caloris in omni corpore: negat enini ullum csse cibum tarn gravem, quin is die et nocte concoquatur, cuius etiam in reliquiis iiiest calor iis. quas natura respuerit. This must be regarded as an argument in favour of the warmth of the vital principle: hence Zeno called the soul

TTvev^a evOepfiov (frag. 85). The excellence of the human soul consists peculiarly in a suitable mixture (evKpaala) of warmth and cold. Cf. Galen quod animi mores etc. IV. 783

K. (quoted at length by Stein, Psychol. p. 105). Cleanthes no doubt was influenced Heraclitus: cf. by frag. 54&gt;, Byw. but substituted warmth for avyrj ^rjpi} ^fv^r/ aocfxardrr], dryness. It is highly probable that the words immediately preceding this extract, which are of great importance for the TO^O? theory, are ultimately derived from Cleanthes: they are as follows: sic enim res se habet, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant in se vim caloris, sine qua neque ali possent neque crescere. Nam omne, (mod est calidum et igneum, cietur et agitur motu suo, quod autem alitur et crescit, motu quodam utitur certo et aequabili, qui quamdiu remanet in nobis, tarn diu sensus et vita remanet, refrigcrato autem et extincto calore occidimus et with this the remarks of i]&gt;si exstinguimur. Compare incorr. Stein Psychol. p. 32, and Philo de mimdi, p. 507, Ka\ arirav et &lt;? SiaXverai re Mang. crcoyu-a dva\vop,evov Trvp %elrai, a^evvv^evrj^ 8e T/;? ev CLVTW (^Xo yo? (jreXXerai Kal avvdyerai. This is one of the many points of contact between the Stoics and the medical school of Hippocrates. \Ve are reminded of the rovos of Cleanthes when we read THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. that , the Peripatetic and musician, described the soul as ipsius corporis intentionem quandam (Cic. Tusc. I. 20), but the doctrines were totally dissimilar: see Munro on Lucr. in. 100.

43. Seneca, Epist. 113, 18, inter Cleanthem et dis- cipulum eius Chrysippum non convenit quid sit ambulatio: Cleanthes ait, spiritum esse a principali usque in pedes permissum; Chrysippus ipsum principale. ambulatio : the Stoics were led to this extreme materialism by their insistence on the dogma that nothing exists but the corporeal. Cf. Plut. Comm. Not. 45, 2, d\\d

Trpo? Tourot? teal TU? evepyeias oxw /xara /cat &&gt;a TTOLOVCTL, TOV Trep nraTov (j)ov, Trjv opxrjaiv, Trjv VTcoOecriv, Trjv Trpocr- ayopevcriv, Tr)v \oi8opiav. spiritum : the Greek original of this would be Ttvevpa

BiaTelvov UTTO TOV r}yefj,oviKov ^XP 1 JT0 ^&gt;(^ V (f- Plut. plac. IV. 21). The deviation of Chrysippus from the teaching of his predecessor was probably caused by a desire to insist more strongly on the essential unity of the soul. Cf. Iambi, ap. Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 368, 12, TTW? ovv Bia-

KpivovTcu ; KdTa fj,ev TOI)? Srwt/coi)? eviat p,ev BidtyopoTrjTi

&lt;TWV&gt; vTTO/ceifjievwv awfJidTwv Trvev^idTd yap OTTO TOV

(fiaaiv ovTOi BidTeiveiv d\\d KdT d\\a, Ta

Be et&lt;&gt; ra 8e a et? 6&lt;f)dd\novs, Ta wra, et? XXa aladrj-


TO ev TU&gt; TTJV wcnrep yap jjt,ij\ov di&gt;Tq&gt; crtw/iart

i Ka ^ T7 v OVTCO ical TO X } evtoBiav, rjyep.ovLKOv tV TdVTU) (fiavTacriav, avyKdTadeaiv, op^njv, \6yov (rvv- Trdcrai ei\rj^)e. Sext. Math. IX. 102, at eVt ra f^epr) TOV

o\ov ea7roo~Te\\6[ivai Sui/a/iet? co? JTTO TIVOS Trrjyi)^ TOV ijyefAOviKov e ^aTrocrreA.A.oi Tat, cao~T Trdcrav Bvva/jLiv Trjv

Trepl TO ^tepo? ovo-av xal Trepl TO o\ov elvat, Bid TO aVo

TOU ev avTu&gt; -qye^oviKov SiaSiBocrdai. The former passage THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 269

Stein for the same is, I find, also cited by purpose (Psychol. out that Cleanthes the p. 1G8). He points explained different soul functions by means of a -rrvev^a Btareivov, The former and Chrysippus by a Trvevpd TTCO? e^ov. while the latter also regarded only the grade, distinguished also the kind of tension. It is possible that this passage treatment of Cleanthes points to the different fyavraaia by Cleanthes more and Chrysippus (cf. frag. 3), insisting contact of the air- strongly on the immediate psychical current with the sense organ (Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, is vitiated his n. 728). Hirzel s explanation (II. p. 201) by fundamental error as to Cleanthes view of the ^yepoviKov. is a certain See also on Zeno frag. 93. There affinity between the doctrine here mentioned and that attributed ol to Strato of by Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 350,

elvai rd&lt;? Be avTijv (scil rrjv Bidvoiav) aiffQrja-ei?, tcaOaTrep Btd TIVWV OTTWV TOOV alaOrjT rjpiwv 7rpoKV7rrov(Tav, 77? 6 Cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 46, ardaea)^ ?]p|e ^rpdrwv fyva-LKos. ad ad nares, a viae quasi quaedam sunt ad oculos, aures, sede animi perforatae.

44. Clem. Alex. Strom, vn. 6. 33. 849 P. 304 S., Wev KOI 6 AtO-COTTO? 0V KdKWS &) TOV? VS KKpttJVai ^ICTTOV orav e\Kwvrai. avvei^evai jap avrois et? ovSev &lt;t~\Xo Bio KOI K\edv0 ei? Ovaiav- r)&lt;; (fyr}(rlv Xptja-i/JiOis 7; 7T\r}i&gt; rrjv rd iva &lt;rairf) dv& d\wv aurou? e%e&gt; rrjv -fyvyfiv, /i&gt;) Kpea. Cic. N.D. The same saying is attributed to Chrysippus by escam? cui II. 160, sus vero quid habet praeter quidem sale datam dicit esse ne putesceret animam ipsam pro de Abstin. ill. Be Chrysippus: to which add Porphyry 20, rj rov ra&gt;i&gt; TO vs, evravOa ycip ecrrt %apLTwv jj^Larov (scil. ov aXXo TI OveaOai Kai rfj \pvo-i7T7rov), Bi -rr\riv ejeyovei, o 6eos olov d\as evepigev. Elsewhere aapicl TT)I&gt; ^rv-^rjv the statement is ascribed to no definite author. Cic. Fin. 270 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

v. ut non 38, inscite illud dictum videatur in sue, animum illi datum pecudi pro sale, ne putisceret. Varro de R. R. II. suillum 4-, 10, pecus donatum ab natura dicunt ad epu- landum. itaque iis animam datam esse proinde ac salem servaret carnem. Pint. quae Quaest. Conv. v. 10, 3, Sio KOI TMV T(oiK&lt;av eviot rr)v vivrjv a-aptca /cpea yeyovevai \eyov&lt;ri, T?;? ^f%?;9 aXcav rov do-Trep Trapea-rrap^ev^ i"7rep Sta- neveiv. we have two Lastly, passages of similar import in which a suggested derivation of fa from 0vetv is referred to: Clem. Alex. n. 20. 174 105, p. S. p. 484 P., X^yerat riva TWV yovv $L\o&lt;ro$ovvrwv ervpoXoyovvra rrjv vv 6vv elvac &5? et? Ovcriv Kal (fxivai, (T&lt;payrjv povov enrrjSeioV Be- So&lt;r6ai rwSe rot ovSev yap ^ww ^rv^v jrpos erepov r) evefca rov ra9 o-a/a/ea? a-Qpiyiiv. Varro R. R. n. 4, 9, sus Graece dicitur olim 6fa dictus ab illo fa, verbo, quod dicunt Qveiv, est inmolare. ab suillo quod enim [geuere] pecore inmo- landi initium primum sumptum videtur; cuius vestigia quod initiis Cereris porci inmolantur. in the world is Everything created for and adapted to a end the existence of special ; various animals is used as an to the argument prove government of the world by the context in Cic. Trpovoia (cf. N.D. 1. c.). In a similar spirit Epict. Diss. n. 8. 7 says that asses were intended to bear and as burdens, that, for this purpose they must walk, imagination has been given them to enable them to do so.

The here as well as passages collected, Zeno frag. 43, shew that Stem s conclusively theory (Psych, p. 92 f.) that the vital of animals is not but principle i/ri;;^, something

between &lt;t!o-t&lt;? and midway -^v^ri, ought not to be accepted. He contends that Marcus Aurelius is the first Stoic who

to but cf. expressly gives ^xt animals, Zeno frag. 50, non spirjtum...fore naturam, sed animam et quidem rationabilem, which to the of clearly points ^0709 &lt;fvxv THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 271

of men. Zeno 56, animals )( ^rvx^l ~^oyov e%ou&lt;ra frag.

1. Ar. Did. Euseb. P.E. XV. 41, ^rv-)(i}v dcprjprj^evov %u&gt;ov, ap. Kal To 20. 3, ra? oe TWV dfypovwv d\oyu&gt;v %u&gt;a)v -v^ir^a?. Aurelius add the passages cited by Stein from Marcus v. 16, vi. 14.

45. Plut. de sollertia animalium XL 2, 3, 6 pev ovv

ov rd toa, e\e&lt;ye, Kaiirep fydcncwv /j-ere^eiv \6yov Oewpia Traparv^elv ^vp^rjKa^ e\0elv e-irl ^ivp^rj- ovv etc erepav fj,vp/j,r]fca ve/cpov (pepovras- dvtovras rfjs erepou? olov evTvy^dveLV avrois real

i /cal re TOVTO Si? rj rpt? yevecrOat, Xo? 8e, tcdrwdev dvevey/celv wcnrep \vrpa TOV ve/cpov aK(t)\r}/ca, roi)? S eKeivov dpa/juevovs, drro^ovra^ 8e rov vefcpov ofyea-

"Acrcrtoy Qai. Aelian Nat. An. VI. 50, K.\edv0r]L&gt; rov Karrj-

teal Kal rot? TOV vd^Kaae aKovra el^ai aTrocrr^at ^wots" teal eKeiva avTihe \ojiafj,ov /AT&gt;} 8iafj,apTaviv, 6 Kal Kara tcpaTOS, laropia roiavTrj, (paalv. TW%ev dvOrjs /caOrj/jievos Kal (Aevroi Kal o-^o\rjv dyaiv Troalv avrco aXXa)? OVKOVV fAvp/jLTjKes Trapd rot? ijcrav 7ro\\oi 6 8e dpa 6pa e ^ drparrov TIVOS erepa? veKpov a olnov fMVp/jirjKa {ivpfJ,r]Kas XXof? KOfii^ovTas et? ereputv, Kal eawrot? ov avvrpofpoov Kal em 76 r&5 %ei\ei r?;? H*vp- Karcodev fj,7]Kid^ ecrrwra? avrw veKpp, Kal dviovras erepovs Kal crvvovras rot? eVot9 w? eVt TLVI, elra /cario^ra? roi)? avrovf, Kal TrXeovaKis TOVTO Kal TeXeirraWa? aKwKriKa, oe eKelvov olovel \vTpa, KOfMLaai roi)? fj,ev \aftelv, TrpoeaOai &e ovTrep ovv eTTijyovro veKpov Kal e/cetVou? V7ro8eacr0ai,

j? viov Ko/jit^o/jievovs rj d8e\(pov. \6yov rd J!a: for animals possess indeed -^rv^v, not Kal Sidvoiav: hence the but "^v^rjv \6&lt;yov e^ovcrav term d^oya wa: cf. Sext. Math. XL 99 foil: the Stoics say that the courage of certain of the nobler (yevvala) is but animals proves that TO Ka\ov (pvcret, alpeTov, only 272 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

can discern 1} (f&gt;povifj,ij SidOeats TO tca\6v: hence 6 d\K-

teal 6 ^rj rrjs Sta$ecrea&gt;9 rpva)v ravpos fier^ovra &lt;/&gt;poi&gt; 1/4779 OVK av /SXerroi TO tca\6v re teal dyadov. Hermes ap. Stob.

Eel. I. 41. 6, p. 284, 12, 7r&lt;w&lt;? ovv opw^kv nva rwv dXoywv /cat olov eVio-T?;/i77 re^vy ^pat fj,eva, rovs nvpp,r)Kas rd&lt;; rov o?. It was T/3o&lt;a9 aTToOrja-avpi^o/Aevovs ^et/i&Jt easier, however, for the Stoics than for those who separate the soul of man from that of animals by a sharp dividing line, to make the admission which circumstances forced upon Cleanthes. For the soul of man differs from that of animals in and not in kind it is the same degree only ; substance, though varying in its degrees of purity, which matter as as permeates inorganic et&lt;?, plants &lt;ucrt9, and men and animals as ^rv^Tj (Diog. L. vn. 139). Chrysippus believed that dogs possessed the power of inference (Sext. Pyrrh. I. 69). Stein, Psychol. n. 165, is mistaken in quoting Ael. N.A. IV. 45 as an authority bearing on this subject. The passage, when cited in full, is seen to have an entirely

different ovv "&lt;U9 application: "0/0.77/309 fiev &lt;j&gt;r)o-lv dyaObv teal TraiBa \i7reardai," eot/ce 8e r] Kara^OLp-evoio &lt;f)vo-i&lt;; Seitcvvvai, oVt KOL eavra) Kara\nreiv, oo &lt;J&gt;i\oi&gt; rifiwpov olov TI teal xa\ &lt;f)i\e "O/j,7)pe, tcepSos e&lt;rriv, irepl Zijvwvos K\edv6ov$ voovf^ev ei Tt (or etVe) dtcovofjuev, i.e. it was an advantage to Zeno to leave his friend Cleanthes behind him to uphold his doctrines. III. |jivip|iTiKas: cf. Cic. N.D. 21, num existimas forrnicam anteponendam esse huic pulcherrimae urbi, quod in urbe sensus sit nullus, in formica uon modo sensus sed etiam mens ratio memoria? Aristotle allowed that some animals, s and especially bees, possessed vovt (cf. Grote Aristotle, p. 483). so Eur. TTOT oXXws: "aimlessly": Hipp. 375, 7/877 a\\&)9 ev I/U/CT09 patcpw xpovw dvrjTWv etypovricr fj THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 273

to the of ants to t arpairov nvos sTtpas: alluding practice use one narrow path in passing backwards and forwards Aen. between their hole and any other place. Cf. Verg. iv. 404, praedamque per herbas convectant calle angusto. terens where Georg. i. 379, angustum formica iter, Forbiger refers to Arist. Hist. An. IX. 38, del ^lav drparrov

46. Cic. N. D. I. 37, idemque (Cleanthes) quasi turn delirans in iis libris, quos scripsit contra voluptatem, turn divini- migit formam quandam et speciem deorum, tatem oinnem tribuit astris, turn nihil ratione censet esse divinius. see Introd. quasi delirans: for the treatise irepl ^80^77? p. 53. an allusion to the alle formam quandam: either (1) of the gorical explanations popular deities, whereby they are identified with the powers of nature, or (2) referring to ev in the to Zeus, as Prof. dviKr/rois %epcrii&gt; hymn Mayor suggests. at in N. D. n. astris: this position is proved length I. 21. 5. 4044, cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. p. 185, 5, ovra ev rd Ka0iSpvrat...0La rrjv (frvcriv (j&gt; (alOepi) acrrpa Kara Kal e/jLilrvva Kal SioiKovfteva rrjv Trpovoiav.

47. Pint. Comm. Not. 31, 5, aXXa Xpvcwnros Kal

dd\arrav ovSeva rwv rov ovpavov rr]V yrjv rov depa rr^v rocrovrwv citydaprov ovS" dioiov a-TroXeXoiTracri, rr\r)V povov rov Ato?, et? of Trai/ra? KaravaXla-Kovo-i TOU? dXXovs... ravra o OL ...TO^9 oor/Liao iv t 7T6Tct^, ttA/A- avroi fj/^ya re /cat ftooovres ev rot? Trepl Oedv Kal Trpovoias ei^ap^evrj^ \eyova-t, rovs aXXou? 6eovs &lt;/)i;crea)? rypa/z/uacrt 8iappr)8rjv Kal VTTO (nravras elvai &lt;yeyovoras &lt;p6apr)crofji,evov^ rrvpos, ovras. Kar auroi)? wcnrep KTjpivovs // Kamrepivovs 18 L 1&gt;. 274 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

&lt; ,,.,, n , -,c$: the r rw Stoics would readily admit this: Cicero makes his Stoic say: quidquid enim magnam utilitatem adferret id non generi humano, sine divina bonitate erga homines fieri arbitrabantur (N.D. II. CO). Zeus is Ai6s: here identified, as often, with the supreme Stoic God: see Zeller, p. 358. cv TOIS Ocwv K.T.X. irtpl Chrysippus wrote Trepi 6eu&gt;v vii. (Diog. 148), Trepi -rrpovoias (ib. 139), Trepi elfiap^ev^ and (ib. 149), Availed (ib. 39). For Cleanthes Trepi 6ewv see Introd. p. 51.

: cf. Pint. &lt;J&gt;9ap7]o-ofivovs Chrysipp. ap. Sto. Rep. 38, 5. Plut. de def. Or. c. /catrot 19, TOI)&lt;? ST&H/COI)? yivtocrKopev ov Ka-ra povov Baifiovwv fjv \eya) B6av e^oi/ra?, d\\d teal OVTWV TocrovTOiv TO evl 7r\rjdo&lt;; -^pw^evov^ diBiw /cal 9apr(i), rot)? S aXXoy? /cat yeyovevai KOI

48. Stob. Eel. I. 1. 12. p. 25, 3.

ddavdrwv, TroXvwvv^e, TrajKpare^ alei, Zev, Trdvra &lt;/&gt;y&lt;rea)9 dp%r)y, vopov fiera icvftepvwv, a " TrdvTea-cri X ^P yap Oe/j-is dvrfTola-i 7rpo&lt;ravSdv. etc crov yap 761/09 eo-pev, t^ou fjiL^pu Xa^di/re?

6(ra a&gt;et re real fMOW oi, ep-rrei Qvrj r eVl yatav 5 TO) o-e Ka0v[jLvi)(Ta) tcai crov tcpdro? dtev deiao).

&lt;rol Tra? oSe Br) Kocrfju)&lt;f, eXicrcropevos Trepl yatav, Treiderai, y KZV ayrjs, ical etcwv VTTO creio Kpareirai- TOIOV e^et? VTroepyov (iviKr/TOis eVt yepcriv d/jL(f&gt;tjKrj, 7rvp6evr\ deityovra tcepavvov 10 TOV VTTO irdvr &lt;criv&gt; yap 7r\r)yf)&lt;t cfrvcrews eppiya

&lt;o av fcarevOvveis KOIVOV \oyov, o? Sid Trdvraiv

(froLTa, fj,iyvv[Mvo&lt;; /j,eyd\ot&lt;? /zt/c/Jot? re Too-o-o? [&lt;u? yeyaais inrarof /3a&lt;rt\v&lt;; Bid ovSe Ti eVt ylyverai epyov ^dovl crov Bi^a, Bai/iov, /car aiOepiov Oeiov TTO\OV OVT* evl TTOVTW, THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 275 ir\r/v orrocra pe^ovat, Ka/col afyerepycnv d\\d av Kal rd rrpi(To~d&lt;T&gt;erri(Tra(Tai dpria detvat, teal Kal ov aol KotTfieiv raKocr/jia (f)L\a &lt;f)i\a eariv, do8e yap et? ev rrdvra o~vvi]p^oKas eo~0\a Kaicolcriv, 20 cocr$ eva yiyveadai rrdvruiv ~\oyov dtev eovra, ov i ewcriv oaot KCLKOL eicri, (f&gt;ev yovTes dvrjrwv 01 r del TroOeovre? Bvafjiopot, d&lt;yada&gt;v fJLev KTIJCTIV ovr eaopwai Oeov KOLVOV VOJJLOV, ovre /cXvovatv, co Kev Treidofjbevoi crvv vw /3lov eo~6\ov e^oiev. 25 avrol avd op^wcnv dvoi KdKov aXXo? e?r d\\o, 01 fjiev vTrep 0^779 cr7rov8r)v Bvaeptcrrov e%oi&gt;Te&lt;t, 01 S 7rl KepSoavvas rerpa^evot. ovSevl d\\oi S et? dvetnv KOI a-caparo^ r/Sea epya ...... eV d\\ore 8 d\\a

(nrevSovTes /iaXa. Trdfiirav evavria rwvSe &lt;y6veo~6ai. aX\d Zey TrdvSwpe, Ke\at,ve(f)e^, dpyi/cepavve, djro dvdpco7rovs&lt;fAev&gt;pvov dTreipoavvr]^ \vyprjs, o-Ke8ao~ov 8e &gt;}v (TV, So? Trdrep, ^rv^rj&lt;f ciiro, Kvpfjcrai (TV 35 , Tri(Tvvos Si iravra -f] /c??? yttera Kvftepvds,

dv Tt-iArjOevres d/j,ei,/3obfj.eo~6d ere ripf), rd ad epya Snjve/ces, co? evreot/ce OVT\ ejrel ovre /Sporots yepas d\\o TI [Aei^ov, ovre ^eot?. f) KOLVOV del VOJJLOV ev oi/cy vp,velv.

1. 7roXviovu(i : not merely in the popular religion, but more particularly from the Stoic standpoint, cf. Diog. L. VII. 147 Kal rrdv- Brj/jiiovpyov rwv o\a&gt;v, &o~rrep rrarepa ru&gt;v Bid KOIVWS re, Kal TO /juepos avrov TO SifjKov rrdvrwv, o TroAAou? TrpocnjyopLaiS rcpoo ovo^d^eraL Kara T&lt;? Svvd-

/Ltei?. See also Krische, p. 401; Stein, Psych, n. 74.

2. v6|iov : cf. Zeno, frag. 39.

4. K o-ou yap Y^os eo-^V. Cf. Act. Apost. XVII. 28, where the words TOU Kal are ydp yevo&lt;? ecr/j,ev quoted by St Paul. The divergence in reading points to the fact 182 276 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

that these words were taken from the Phaenomena of

Aratus, 1. 5, rather than from the present passage. TJXOW: so MS. F, an unmetrical and senseless reading, not corrected. The is a con yet satisfactorily vulg. lrj&lt;f jecture of Brunck, and is destitute of authority. Meineke read Wachsm. II. yev6fj,ecr0a \6yov ; (Comm. p. 18) sug vov aov a gested (or 8rj crov) TfjLrj/j,a, and now proposes for Usener cum ex os ~ rtfirjfjia fiifjLijpa ; appareat rfxpv $ semate natum esse vSrjs (a word coined from vBeiv). None of these are convincing, arid all are inferior to r Bergk s 6\ov, which might have been adopted, had it satisfactorily accounted for the MS. reading. Wachs- muth indeed says that it introduces "sententiam a Stoicis but he must alienam," have failed to remember frag. 24, which shows that it is a favourite thought with Cleanthes to represent the individual as a counterpart of the divine

" " cosmos. It appears to me that an allusion to speech is not here in appropriate, spite of Zeller (p. 215). Mein- eke s if \6yov, adopted, would mean "reason" (not cf. Euseb. P. E. xv. "speech"), 15, p. 817 d (quoted by KOivwviav 8 Wachsm.) inrap-^iv 777)09 d\\ij\ovs (scil. 0eou Kal 8id TO If dv6pwTTQ)v) \6jov /jiere^eiv. &lt;yev6fj.ecr6a is for or eic crou. accepted yevos &lt;rp.ev, perhaps JJLOVOV 5. So-a: for the omission of the antecedent cf. Soph. Ai. 1050, Trach. 350, and for the sense Horn. II. 17. 447, Od. 18. 131. Hirzel argues (n. 201210), mainly relying on this passage, that Cleanthes was not a pantheist in the full sense of the term, and that he allowed only a limited extension to the divine : 7rvev/j,a but see Introd. p. 41.

6. cxfCo-w : diSco F, whence deiBoj Wachsm. but the ; is awkward after present very KaBv/j-vija-a), and it is by no clear that means Cleanthes would have preferred deio-opai the evidence collected (see by Yeitch s. v.). 7. is here as Koo-jios used, Krische, p. 425, has observed, THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 277

in vn. in the less extended sense mentioned Diog. 138,

rwv elvat : Kal dvrrjv Be TIJV BiaKoo-fjirjaiv darepwv KOO-^OV = hence eXto-cro/Aei o? /cu/cXo^o/j^-uKo?. VTTO MS. F. 9. M. So Brunck and Wachsm. fierd Mein. For the sense cf. Soph. 0. C. 1515. to forked cf. Aesch. 10. a^TJKt!: alluding lightning, Be P. V. 1040 Trvpbs diij&gt;r)KW oo"r/3uxo9. Hesych. (ibices

- l&lt;&lt;&gt;9. /3eXo&lt;? r\ fcepavvos, i) fc e/carepov fj,epovs i}tcovr)fji,evov the cf. Zcno frag. K P ow6v. for physical explanation another name for 74. But to Cleanthes icepavvbs is only which he identifies with rovos, cf. Heraclit. 77X777?) Trupo?, 8e Trdvra frag. 28. Byw. rd olaKi^ei icepavvbs. and most odd. for F 11. eppfyao-iv: so Ursinus eprjya 10 which -in taio postea spatium litt.," might suggest are similar after vv. epya ^afj.daO^ : but there text at this is sus 1 2 and 13, and the point generally marked a lacuna after this picious. Wachsm. formerly with II. n. 1, in line, but now agrees Hirzel, p. 118, referring ro in v. 12 to Kepavvbv. which Peterson tries to defend, 13. fj^aw H-ixpouri F, is the was corrected by Brunck. The reference to sun, cf. Zeno 45. moon, and stars. For the general sense frag. A lacuna was marked after this line by Mein., who is that v. followed by Wachsm. But it is equally possible for the sense is 14 is a spurious or corrupt addition, (1) Bid Travrbs is after Bid complete without it, (2) suspicious to context jrdvrwv in v. 12, (3) it is difficult imagine any co? roo-ao? from frigid, which would prevent yeyau&gt;&lt;t being is if not obscure, (4) the excessive sigmatism pointless. K.T.\. The 1720. -irX^v 6) explanations given by are the Stoics of this Aveak point in their system and as be seen from lessly confused contradictory, may the notes to an examination of the passages cited in 193. We have had occasion to refer to Zeller, p. 189 278 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

this before subject (frag. 18), and, putting together that and the passage present, we may perhaps suppose that Cleanthes accounted for the existence of moral evil some

what as follows : evil is not directly due to God, but is a of necessary accompaniment the process, whereby he created the world out of himself. At the same time, the of God is vindicated by the consideration that evil is ultimately swallowed up in good, and that the of nature is apparent irregularity in reality only a phase in the of a working higher law. Chrysippus is incon sistent here, as elsewhere (cf. Diog. L. vii. 180), but to some at extent, least, he agreed with Cleanthes: to? rdov TO Oelov aia-%pu&gt;v Trapalnov yivevOai ovtc evXoyov ecrriv Sto. (Pint. Rep. 33, 2). We may compare Plato s words II. 379 ouT Rep. C, dpa 6 0eo9, eVetSi} dyaOos, -jrdvrwv av

eiij airio?, a&gt;9 01 7ro\\ol Xeyovviv, aXA, o\iya&gt;v /j,ei&gt; rots dvOpwroiS aiTios, TroXXwv 8e dvalrtof TroXi) yap eXdrra* -rwv rcatcajv rdyadd r)p.lv Kal rwv fiev dyadwv ovSeva d\- \ov TWV 8e Ka/cwv airiareov, aX\ arra Set frreiv rd atria, d\\" ov rov 6eov. See further Gercke Chrysippea, p. 699. 24. Koiviv Cf. v6(iov. infra frag. 73. No doubt Cle anthes remembered Heracl. frag. 91. Byw. %vvov evri -jraai TO &lt;j&gt;pOVlV. 25. KCV belongs to the verb, Madv. 137. 26. avtu KaKo0...aXAa F, dvoi Wachsm., KaKov..,d\\o Sauppe.

28. ov8vl this is KoVp.&gt;: phrase used by Herod, and Thuc. as an equivalent for draKraxf. Here it means

"inordinately, recklessly." Cleanthes was probably in fluenced by Homer s fondness for fid^ drdp ov Kara 1 (II. 2. 214 etc.) and the like. al. ovS cvl

30, 31. &XXorv Usener, &lt;f&gt;epovrai Meineke, while in 31 Wachsm. suggests 7reve&lt;r0ai for yevea-ffai. The sense is THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 279 unsatisfactory, but as the text is so mutilated conjecture seems hazardous. Mohnike (pp. 34 44) has a long dis cussion on these lines, which he calls the hardest in the Hymn. As the text stands, 1. 31 must mean that the effect of the actions of the is the &lt;j&gt;av\oL just opposite to that which they intend. 32. Cf. Zet)? an used dp-yiKpavv. dpyi]&lt;;, expression by Empedocles to denote fire (R. and P. 131), Zeno 8e rov frag. 116, "Ap&lt;yr]i&gt; eVetS?? (fracn dpyrjra Kepavvov.

33. v : add. but we should read e /c- jxe Scaliger, perhaps i.e. the condition of the pvov. a7reipocrvvr)s dyvoia, $&gt;av\oi. ~

3.6 . K.T.\. of -yvw|iT)s T] mo-vvos Another reminiscence 19. ev TO Heraclitus, frag. Byw. &lt;ro(f)6v, rcdvra Sid Trdvrwv. , 77 Kvftepvdrai

49. Philodem. de Mus. col. el 28, 1, /A&lt;I) ye ir&gt;apd

K.\edv&lt;0&gt;6L &lt;avrd&gt; o? \e&lt;yeiv 6e\^aova&lt;L&gt;v, ^a-tv elvai rd KOL TroirjTt/cd &lt;p,ova&gt;iKd Trapa- rov rov , /cat, &lt;\6j&gt;ov Trjs c^tXocro^t a?

rd 6e&lt;l&gt;a Kai ay&lt;y&gt;e^.\ei&lt;i&gt; 8&gt;vva/j,evov

8e ru&gt;v Oeiwv d&lt;v&gt;0&lt;p&gt;a&gt;&lt;7riva, /t&gt;?) e^ov&lt;r&gt;o&lt;f tyi\ov ot/eei rd /cat rd /cat fj,eye9ajv Xe^et? a?, fjuer&lt;pa&gt; p,e\Tj roi)? pv6(jiov&lt;; w? yLta/\,&lt;t&gt;crra TrpocriKvetcrOai Trpos rrjv d\rj9eiav

Tt/9 TWV 6elu&gt;v 0&lt;ea&gt;&gt; pta?. For the general sense, cf. Plat. Rep. x. 607 A, el8evai ort oaov fjiovov VILVOVS 6eol&lt;f KOI eyfcoufAia rot? dyadols et? TTO\LV. The 7ronjo-eo)&lt;; TrapaSe/creov underlying thought is that it is impossible to define the nature of God : cf. Hermes, ap. Stob. Eel. II. 1. 26, deov vorjaai pev %a\e7r6v, (frpdaai 8e dSvvarov. Plat. Tim. 28 C, 29 C, D. The construction is not quite clear. Zeller, in citing this passage (p. 342, 1), puts a full stop after otVcet a?, but this makes rd p,erpa K.T.\. very abrupt, and it is better to regard KOL before rov \6yov as connecting elvai and 280 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

rrpoa-iKveladai, although this leaves dpeivova without an object. bare &lt;|aAov: prose, i.e. stripped of the advantages of metre. The of the history word is well explained in Jebb s Appendix to Oed. Col. 866. Cf. Plat. Menex. p. 239 B, C, 7roir)Tal...ev povo-iicf) v/j,vr/&lt;ravTe&lt;t...dv ovv

&gt;?&gt;et? rd avrd 7Tixipfj.V \6yo&gt; i/rt\c3 Koafielv. &gt;/rt\o9

" Xo7o? also means " abstract reasoning (Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 262 and a " bare " c), statement unsupported by Dem. Androt. evidence, 22, Aphob. I. 54.

" TWV. . .olKtfos, expressions suitable to the divine majesty."

50. Senec. Epist. 108, 10, Nam, ut dicebat Cleanthes, quemadmodum spiritus noster clariorem sonum reddit , ilium quum tuba, per lougi canalis angiistias tractum, potentiorem novissimo exitu effudit sic ; sensus nostros clariores carminis arta necessitas efficit. tuba. Greek were trumpets long and straight, ending in a bell-shaped aperture ( K cf. Aesch. &lt;oS&lt;ov), Eum. 567, Stdropo? Tvpa-tjviKrj a-d\7rij^ fiporeiov -jrvevfjiaros 7r\r)- povvevT) v-jreprovov yjjpvfia fyaiverw, and Soph. Ai. 17, where compares the voice of Athene to the sound of a trumpet. clariorem: more distinct, cf. Cic. Div. in Q. Caecil. 48, clarius dicere an (of actor) )( multum summittere.

sensus : signification, meaning : as in Ov. Fast. V. 484, hie sensus verbi, vis ea vocis erat. Cf. Sen. Ep. 7 ad fin. 114, 1. Hence Quintilian frequently uses the word for a sentence or period.

arta necessitas : cf. Find. N. IV. rd 33, f*aKpd V epvKft /u,e

51. Math. ix. 88, o Be K\edv0^ otrax; - ^Sext. el &lt;f&gt;vo-i&lt;i (frvaew eVrt Kpeirrwv, eirj dv TI? dpi THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 281

" e Tt el, cv rt? el fy-vxn tyvx^ Kpeirrwv, ?? apary dv ri fal el %wov roivvv Kpelrrov eari Zyov, eiij rd 5 ov ei&lt;? eWwrmi Kpdriarov fyoov. yap ciireipov rrefyvKe

ovre rj eBvvaro eV direipov roiavra, warrepovv &lt;f&gt;vais TO ovO ovre TO avgeaOai Kara Kpelrrov r) ^v^} Zyov. (aov w? ITTTTOS (89) d\\d firjv %wov Kpelrrov ecrriv, ^eXcof?;?, ovov Kal \ewv rrdvrwv oe el TV^OL, Ka\ Tavpos ravpov. r r fcal Kal 10 a-^e8ov ru&gt;v e m yeiwv %wa)V GW^ariKY) -v/ru^t/cJ} 6 roivvv Siadeaet. Trpoe^ei re Kal KpancrTevei avdpUTTO? Kal Kal ov rrdvv n Kpdrtarov civ eirf fyZov apiarov. (00)

elvai Svvarat, olov ev0ea&gt;&lt;i 6 (ivOpwrros Kpdria-rov wov, Be on Bid KaKias rropeverai rov Trdvra %povov, el M ye, 15 TOV TrXela-Tov (KOI yap ei rcore Trepiyevoiro apery?, o^re r Kal Trpo? rat? rov fiiov cW/nat? ireptyiyverat), eirlfcijpov earl Kal da-Oeves Kal /Avpiwv 8eo/j,evov /3oijOr)^dra)v, Kal rov KaOdrrep rpo(p^ Kal aKtrcaapdrav r^9 a\\i)&lt;i TWOS etpecr- &lt;TWfj,aTOS eVi^eXaa?, rrtKpov rvpdvvov rporrov (iTraiTovvros, Kai 20 rci)T09 r]H,lv Kal TOV vr/309 rjfxepav Baa/iov ware \ovetv avro KOI K-ai el pr) TTape^oi/jiev dXeifyew Kal Odvarov diTei\ovvTOS. 7repi@d\\eiv Kal rpe^eiv, vocrovs ware ov re\eiov ^wov o dvOpwrros, areXe? Be Kal TTO\V re\eiov. TO Be re\eiov Kal Ke-xwpiafievov rov (91) apiarov Kal vracrat? rat? 25 Kpelrrov fiev dv vrrdp-^oi dvOpwrrov /ca/coO dperat? av^rrerrKrjpw^evov Kal vravro? dve-rriBeKrov, rovro Be ov Bioiaei deov. eariv dpa Oeos. This argument for the existence of God is stated in form different language and a somewhat amplified by

Cic. N. D. ii. 3336 : cf. especially 35.

2. the vital of Zeno frag. 43. 4&gt;v&lt;ri.s: principle plants. of the conditional l...rTi...i:T] av: in this form sentence the inference is stated less bluntly than if the This is indicative were used : see Madv. 135 R, la. or in the especially frequent with eOe\w @ov\ofj,ai pro Plat. 208 c. Eur. Ale. 1079. tasis : cf. Stallb. ad Symp. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

A close to the use parallel here is Dem. xxxvi. 44, el Se TOVTO Voet9, on TTIO-TK; dfyop^ -jraawv &lt;TTI fiejia-nj irav av 7T/3o&lt;? xpr)[j,aTio-iJ,6v, dyvorja-eias.

11. Siatto-ci : cf. Zeno frag. 117. 12. Kof: Bekker to read d\\d or proposed Kal (JLI}V, but Wachsmuth s tcairot is preferable.

15. voiTo : for the TrtpiYe optative in protasis, see Jebb on Soph. Ai. 521, Ant. 666. 16. Svo-ptais: cf. Ar. Poet. c. 21, 13, 1457 b 3 22, 77 7^9 Kal 7rpo&lt;? fiiov eaTrepa Trpos rj/j,epav epei TO LVVV rrjv ecnre- pav yfjpa? rj/Jtpaf, Kal TO y^pa^ ea-rrepav fiiov rj, axrTrep Cf. E^Tre&o/cX^?, Sv&lt;r/j,ds ftiov. Aesch. Ag. 1123, /3tov Svvros The avyals. difficulty of attaining apery, in the Stoic sense, is illustrated by the fact that even Socrates and Antisthenes were only regarded as TrpotcoTrTovres vii. and (Diog. 91) ; Alexander says that they admit the existence of a man here and good there, &Wep rt irapd- Sogov %wov Kal Trapd fyvcriv, a-n-avicorepov rov &lt;&OIVIKO&lt;; (de c. 28). In Diog. 1. c. the fact that 0i can Fato,^ (f&gt;av\ become dyaBol is given as a proof that virtue is teachable. Hirzel has traced the development of the doctrine of the wise man within the Stoa, and shews that by the earlier Stoics and (Zeno his immediate pupils) the ideal was as regarded attainable and as actually realised by them selves (pp. 274277). 20. diraiTolvros. The preposition conveys the idea of demanding as of right: cf. d-rro^ovvai as used in the Halonnesus dispute (Aeschin. Ctes. 83). 22. " to ircpipoXXciv, clothe," cf. Zeno, frag. 175.

52. Cic. N. D. n. 1315. Cleanthes quidem noster quattuor de causis dixit in animis hominum informatas deorum esse notiones. primam posuit earn, de qua modo dixi, orta esset ex quae praesensione rerum futurarum : THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 283

5 alteram quam ceperimus ex magnitudine comrnodorum, fccunditate terrarum, quae percipiuntur caeli temperatione, tertiam aliarumque commoditatum complurium copia: nimbis, quae terreret animos fuhninibus, tempestatibus, terrae motibus nivibus, grandinibus, vastitate, pestilentia, inibribus et imbrium 10 et saepe fremitibus, lapideisque guttis labibus aut terrarum quasi cruentis, turn repentinis hiatibus, turn praeter naturam hominum pecudumque facibus visis caelestibus, turn stellis iis, portentis, turn vocant...tum sole quae Graeci cometas nostri cincinnatas homines vim esse 15 geminate... quibus exterriti quandam caussam caelestem et divinam suspicati sunt. quartani con- esse eamque vel maximam aequabilitatem motus, omnium dis- versionem caeli, solis, lunae, siderumque tinctionem, varietatem, pulcritudinem, ordinem, quarum non esse ea fortuita. 20 rerum aspectus ipse satis indicaret Cic. N. D. in. 1C, nam Cleanthes, ut dicebas, quattuor modis formatas in animis hominum putat deorum esse ex notiones. unus is modus est...qui est susceptus futurarum. alter ex praesensionc rerum perturbationibus motibus. tertius ex commoditate 25 tempestatum et reliquis ex astrorum rerum quas perspicimus et copia. quartus orcline caelique constantia. concludes Phil, 1. Cleanthes. Mr Bywater (Journ. was indebted to vii. 75 foil.) that Cleanthes largely for his statement Aristotle s dialogue irepl &lt;tXoo-o&lt;/a&lt;? of a belief in of the four reasons given for the origin gods, first and fourth in the series were and proves that the derived from that work. is to be observed that Cleanthes 2. informatas. It s existence as derived entirely regards the idea of God and not as an from our experience of external objects, n. 737. innate conception. Stein, Erkermtnistheorie, on the exis- 4. praesensione : this argument depends 284 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. tence of 81 fiavnicrj, 77 ovelpwv Trpopprja-is etc. (Sext. Math. IX. 132), which are described as trXfjdo^ Trpay^drajv 7re7ricrTevfj,ev&lt;i)v ifirj Trapd Trdaiv dvOpunrois. Krische, p. 419, attributes some further arguments to Cleanthes, which the evidence does not wan-ant. 7. tertiam: there does not appear to be any extant parallel to this in the Greek texts. Although there is no reason to suppose that we have not here a reproduction of the general argument of Cleanthes, at the same time it is that Cicero has probable enlarged the list of portents from Roman sources. The prodigies mentioned are those which meet us in constantly , as requiring expiation by lustration**, supplicationes, lectisternia etc. Lists of prodigies illustrating those mentioned here by Cicero will be found in Liv. xxi. 62, xxn. 1, xxiv. 44, xxvi. 23, etc. Tac. H. i. 86, Juv. xm. 6570, and above all in the exhaustive account of Lucan, I. 525 583.

8. terreret : Prof. quae Mayor quotes Democritus, ap. Sext, Emp. ix. 24. 14. cometas: for the physical explanation, cf. on Zeno, frag. 75. 16. quartern: for a fuller statement of the fourth argument, cf. Sext. Math. ix. Ill 118, ib. ix. 2627: in the last passage it is simply introduced by the term but evtoi, from its position between an argument of and one to Epicurus belonging some "younger Stoics," Mr Bywater (Journ. Phil. VH. 76) infers that its immediate source was one of the earlier Stoics, possibly Cleanthes. 17. aequabilitatem. "Cicero is probably translating some such as phrase ofiaXoTrjra Kivtj&ewt, &lt;f)opdv ovpavov," Prof. Mayor.

53. Epiphan. adv. Haeres in. 2. 9 (in. 37), TO ayaBov icat icakov elvcu ra? Kal Xeyei 7jSovd&lt;;, av6pa&gt;Trov THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 285

KOI TOI)&lt;? #601)5 etcdXei povrfv -rrjv ^f%*?V, pvarriKa /cal real eivai e\eyev elvai AcXr/cret? icpds, SaSoO%ov e&lt;f&gt;acrKV /cat 7-01)5 rwv TOV r]\iov, Kal TOV KOO-^OV yLtucrra? KCLTOXOVS

9eiwv reXera? e\e&lt;ye. obvious blunder. Krische, 1-6 dyie6v...Ti8ovas. An p. the writer of the has con 431 n. 1, suggests that epitome founded the statement by Cleanthes of his opponents

position with his own teaching. can be made of this mutilated ^vepwTrov K.T.X. Not much it to the doctrine of the soul statement ; possibly points union for the Stein, regarded as the bond of body. Psych, finds here a trace of the between p. 209, correspondence 100 the macrocosm and the microcosm, and quotes frag. TWV 7-01)5 drraiSevTovs (Movy rrj poptyf} 0i)pi(ov Sca^epeiv. to TOVS 66ovs K.T.X. These obscure words appear repre from the sent an explanation of the Eleusinian mysteries the sun as the is Stoic point of view, in which ^epovitfov who marches at the head symbolised by the torchbearer and Diels cor of the procession of mystae, (adopting to the rections, v. infra) the world itself corresponds mys who are with divine truth tery play, while those inspired Euseb. P. E. in. 12. are the . Cf. Porphyr. ap. Kar EXevalva 6 p,ev lepo- p. 116, ev Se TOi? pvaTripiois

in see Prof. Se el? rrjv falov. For the subject general however Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. 119. Mr Bywater (Journ. have here a mutilated Phil. VII. 78) believes that we derived from Aristotle s argument, ultimately dialogue in the and explaining the belief gods Trepi &lt;j&gt;i\o&lt;ro&lt;j&gt;ia&lt;;, on as due to a feeling of awe and admiration consequent The allusion the of the heavenly bodies. of : "we to the mysteries is brought in by way comparison seem introduced into a temple like that at , only the the hea- more august and solemn, because figures [= - Sti THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. we venly bodies] see circling around us are not lifeless or made with hands, and the celebrants are not men, but the immortal This gods." explanation is fortified by a re ference to Dio. xn. 387 Chrys. p. B, Plut. de tranq. 20, 477 c, D p. (also quoted For o- by Diels). ^variKa Xij- fiara see Lobeck and for Aglaoph. p. 130, K\j&lt;ret? t epa? ib. p. 62.

ftv&lt;rras...TXTa s. who Diels, p. 592, records other sug has gestions, fivo-r^ptov...re\ea-Ta&lt;f. Perhaps, from a of comparison Chrysipp. ap. Etym. M. 751, 16 id. Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, we to restore rot)? ought Kar6X ov&lt;; r&v 8elwv

54. Philodem. Trepi evo-e/3. fr. 13. ev Se TW Bevre&lt;py&gt;

6eu&gt;v (scil. rd r&lt;e&gt; Trepi Xpvannros) et? &lt;Kal M&gt; Op&lt;/&gt;ea ova-aiov tcai &lt;r&gt;a dva^&lt;p6fj,&gt;e&lt;v&gt;a &lt; Trap Q&gt;^r,pw Ka \ Ha-i6B&lt;a)&gt; Kal Evpi&lt;7r&gt;i8r] K &lt;al&gt; a Tro^ra?? XXoi? &lt;to&gt;9

Ka&lt;l&gt; K\edv0r)&lt;; &lt;7r&gt;etpara&lt;t &lt;rvv&gt;oiKeiov&lt;v&gt; rat?

So^ai? avru&gt;&lt;v&gt;. Cicero s paraphrase, which omits all mention of Cle- anthes, is as follows (N. D. i. 41) : in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accomodare ad ea, libro de quae ipse primo dis immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi haec poetae, qui ne suspicati quidem sint, Stoici fuisse videantur. As far as Cleanthes is con cerned the direct evidence only applies to Homer: see Introd. 51, but cf. p. frag. 111. This passage is included by Wachsmuth i. (Comm. p. 16) under the fragments of the book Trepi

55. Plut. de audiendis poetis c. 11, Sec 8e ovofUiTtov a&gt;eXc9 d\\d dicovciv, T )i/ fiev KXedvtiovs -rrai- Sidv TrapaiTia-0ar ea-rtv KaTeipwveverat yap ore -jrpoa Troiovp,evo&lt;i egiyyelo-ffat TO THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 287

Zev Trdrep "iB^dev /zeSewi , Kal TO Zev ava Aa)8(0vaie,

Ke\evo)v dvayiyvuxTKeiv vfi ev, &5? TOV etc TTJS yfjs avauv/ji- Lcouevov depa Sid TTJV di&gt;aSocriv AvaSw&fovatov ovra.

Wachsmuth cites Schol. B L Homer IT 238 Zev ava A&&gt;-

Tives Be dvaoa&gt;Su&gt;vale ev dvdSocriv Swvaie] vfy" irapd TTJV

T&v dyadwv (?) This comes from the book irepl TOV TTOLT^TOV according to Krische, p. 433, and Wachsm., Comm. I. p. 17. Zev

II. III. 320 : Zev ava Trdrep "18r]6ev peSecov, 276, AwScovaie, II. xvi. 233. ircuSiav. It is worthy of observation that Plut. dis tinctly suggests that Cleanthes was not serious in his etymologies : see Introd. p. 43, 44, and cf. Plat. Cratyl. 40G B, aXA/ earl yap teal (nrovBaiuis rwv ovopdrwv TOUTOI? roi? Oeols /cat

: to of celestial dva0u|j.no(j.6vov a reference the feeding the bodies by exhalations of coarser material, cf. frag. 29 8 e Cornut. wiceavos &lt;TTt...r)&lt;&gt; rrjv avaQv^lacfiv eTTive/Aerai. It c. 17, p. 84 Osann. drjp Kara dvabocnv. may be ob served that the attribution of this doctrine to Thales by

Stob. Eel. L 10, 12, p. 122, 18 cannot be relied upon.

56. Plut. de Is. et Osir. 8e TTOV 66, &lt;$&gt;epae$&gt;bvriv (frrjo-i, TO Bed rwv Kal Kapirwv (j&gt;epo/j,evov (povevofievov

Diibner translates: spiritus qui per fruges dum fertur interimitur. Probably this, as well as the seven following fragments, comes from the treatise irepl Oe&v (Wachsm.

Comm. I. p. 15). Cf. Plut. de Is. c. 40, where

and Persephone are explained as TO 8id r^9 7^9 /cat TU&gt;V

KapTTaiv SirJKov TrvevfAa. Chrysipp. ap. Philod. Trepl ei)cre/9.

col. 79 Kal rj TO ev 12, p. Gomp. TTJV ArifAyTpa &lt;yfjv THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Cic. N. II. D. G6, ea (Proserpina) enim est quae Graece ) nominatur, quam frugum semen esse volunt absconditamque quaeri a matre fingunt. Plato s derivations of the will name be found at Cratyl. 404 c, D. For modern views see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 894.

57. Macrob. Sat. i. 18, 14, unde Cleanthes ita cogno- minatum scribit (Dionysum) OTTO rov Siavvcrai, quia coti- diano impetu ab oriente ad occasum diem noctemque faciendo caeli conficit cursum. In the Orphic hymn, quoted just before the present passage, Dionysus is derived from 8iveia-0ai. He is else where explained by the Stoics (1) as wine, Cic. N. D. n. cf. Plato s derivation from 60, to&gt;/u and oli/o?, the latter resolved into being oieadai and 1/01)9, (2) as TO yovipoi Kal c. rfvevfia rpo&lt;f)ifj,ov, Plut. de Is. 40. For the identifi cation of Dionysus with the sun see the commentators on Verg. Georg. I. 5, vos, o clarissima mundi lumina, laben- tem caelo quae ducitis annum, Liber et alma Ceres.

58. Macrob. Sat. i. 17, 8, Cleanthes (Apollinem) &lt;y&lt;? air a\\(av /cat uXX.a)v rorrwv T? dvaro\d&lt;; 7roiovfj,evov, quod ab aliis atque aliis locorum declinationibus faciat ortus.

Chrysippus (Macrob. 1. c.) derived the word ATTO\\WV from a and rro\v^, while Plato explains the various func tions of the God by different etymologies of his name (Crat. p. 405 A E), so that he is at once drr\ov, del

/3aA,XovT09, drroXovovros, and o/ioTroXoui/To? (ib. p. 406 A).

59. Macrob. Sat. i. 17. 36, Cleanthes Lycium Apol linem notat appellatum quod, veluti lupi pecora rapiunt, ita ipse quoque humorem eripit radiis. Antipater in the same passage derives the name ano rov \evKaivea0ai trdvra fywrifyvTos ij\iov, a guess, which, THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 289 so far as the of Au/? is concerned, has found some favour in modern times (Miiller Dor. n. 6 8). Pro bably Cleanthes did not recognise a distinction between the two titles Au/ao9 and Av/ceto? (Soph. El. 7), and the best modern opinion seems to agree with him to this extent: see Leaf on II. IV. 101. The connection of Apollo with wolves is indicated by the legends in Pausaii. II. 9. 7, II. 19. 3. In Cornut. c. 32 the name is explained in con nection with the pestilences brought by Apollo on flocks, which were therefore entrusted to him as Apollo Lycius.

humorem eripit: cf. frags. 29 and 55.

60. Macrob. Sat. 1. 17. 31, Ao^a? cognorniiiatur, ut ait , on eKTropeverai rov \o%ov KVK\OV drro id est cva-/ji(i)v eV dvaro~\.ds Kivovuevos, quod obliquum circulum ab occasu ad orientem pergit: aut, ut Cleanthes scribit, eVetS?) icaO e/Vt/ca? Kiveirai, \oal yap elcn Kal avrai, quod flectuosum iter pergit. Cf. Achill. Tat. Isag. 109 A, 6 &)Sia/co9 Kal Ao^to^ VTTO rtvwv Ka\eirai, eVetSr) 77X^09 ra9 0801)9 eV avrcZ

TropeveraL Xo^o9. ev 8e TU&gt; ^X.t&) 6 ATroXXtov 09 /caXelrai Ao^ia9 VTTO TWV TTOLi]Twv elvac TTicrreueTai. Cornut. c. 32 gives two explanations: Xo&3f 8e teal irepia-Ke\wv ovrwv SiBwcri, drro rdov ypr^o-^wv 01)9 Ao^ia9 ajfo/iacrrat TJ rrjs

: Xo| OT7;T09 r?;9 Tropeias i}v Troieirat, Bid rov faSia/cov KVK\OV. For modern derivations of the name Loxias see Jebb on Soph. O.T. 854.

SSXiKas : for the obliquity of the sun s course cf. frag. 29 and Diog. L. vn. 144 there quoted.

61. Photius s. v. XeV^at, p. 158 ed. ., KXeai/^9

oe (frrjaiv (iTrovev^^o Oai rw ATroXXcovt ra9 Xecr^a9, e^e- Kal avrov Be rov ATroXXo) oe Oyuotas" yiveaOat, Trap

eTriKa\eicrdai. So Suidas I. 541 s. v. i\ea"%r)vopiov


the additional informa Xecr^at. In Harpocrat. s.v. we get tion that these remarks were contained in the treatise

: is called Ae&lt;r- Cf. Pint, de el ap. Delphos c. 2 Apollo -TM vrjvopios, orav evepfyaMTi KOI dtro\avoKTi -^pw^evoL teal The inference 8id\eye&lt;T0ai, (friXoo-ofalv Trpo? aXX^Aou?. drawn by Wachsmuth seems correct, viz., that Cormitus took from Cleanthes the words found in c. 32, KOI Xeo-^-

8ia TO ra&lt;? vbpiov 8 avrbv (\\Tr6\\a)va) Trpoarjyopeva-av rat? Kal rw aXX^Xot? ij/j,epa&lt;; Xeo-^at? 6/jnXelv a-vve^ea-Bai avcnravecrdai. TOI)? dvdpwTTOvs, ra? 8e vv/cras icaO* eavrovs He remarks that Cornutus appears to have devoted much attention to the study of Cleanthes. Cf. Pers. Sat. V. 63, cultor enim iuvenum purgatas inseris aures fruge Cle- anthea. These were recesses or alcoves sometimes {j Spais. fitted with branching out from an open air court, and for the con stone seats; they were especially adapted Fin. versation of philosophers and rhetoricians. Cf. Cic. fuit v. 4, ego ilia moveor exedra; modo enim Carneadis; a quern videre videor (est enim nota imago), sedeque ipsa, illam vocem tanta ingeni magnitudine orbata, desiderari " of the or puto. in his description palaestra, gymnasium, such as were attached to Roman villas of the three of the cloisters higher class, recommends that in surrounding the court there should be exedrae spatiosae studiis in quibus philosophi, rhetores, reliquique qui delectantur sedentes disputare possint v. 11." Prof. Mayor

on Cic. N.D. I. 15. See also Becker, Charicles, p. 303.

Guhl and Koner, p. 403. and 6(ioas: the distinction between Xeo-^at e^eBpat seems to be that the former were separate buildings used latter were attached entirely as lounges, whereas the either to a private house or a public gymnasium. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHKS. 291

62. Cornut. c. 31 ad fin., roik oe SwoeKa (W~\,ovs ev ovrc eVt rov dvayayelv d~\,~\.OTpia&gt;$ 6e6v, co? j^ eTron-jcrev ov Setf Se Sofcel rcavrayov evpecri-

\oyov TtpecrfBeveiv. It seems clear from the account of Cornutus that there

were two current modes of allegorical interpretation of the myths which centre round Heracles. By one set of inter preters Heracles was regarded as an ordinary mortal and by others as a god. Cleanthes apparently explained the twelve labours from the latter point of view. An illustra tion of this line of interpretation may be seen in the

explanation given by Cornutus of Heracles as an archer : S /card re Kai TO^OT??? av o 6eo&lt;; Trapeia-dyoiTO, TO Travra-^ov

$UKi&gt;ia-8ai K.T.\. But in the account of the twelve labours in Heraclitus, All. Horn. c. 33, Heracles is represented simply as a wise man who brought to light the hidden

of philosophy : Hpa/cXeo. 8e vo/jLKrreov OVK aw/AaTi/crjs Suvd^ews dva^Oevra TOCTOVTOV la^vcraL Tore a\\ Kai xpovois. avi]p kfAcfopwv cro&lt;^)(,a? ovpaviov

/u-t crrr;? yeyovws, oocnrepel Kara /BaOeias

Bvtcviav e 0(WTi(7e rr)v fyC^ocrofyiav, KadaTrep ^.TwiKwv 01 8oKi/ji(t)Taroi. Zeller, pp. 368, 369, relying on the concluding words of the passage cited, thinks that the account is derived from Cleanthes, but, if so, there is a

discrepancy with Cornutus. Krische (p. 400) on the other hand says: "irre ich nicht, so fiihrte Kleanthes, gleichwie spater Porphyrius (bei Euseb. P.E. III. 112 c), die zwolf Ar- beiten des Herakles auf die Bahn der Sonne durch die zwolf Zeichen des Zodiakus zuriick de X. D. 91 (Cornut. p. G)."

: this (vpia-i\oyov "expectes rov," Lang. Osann interprets to mean that Cornutus apologises for referring to the authority of Cleanthes by saying that such a trifler ought not to be respected in all cases. This derives a certain of amount support from Plutarch de aud. poet. p. 31 where 192 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

But Chrysippus is spoken of as evpeatXoyouv aTriQavws. it seems strange that Cornutus should have alluded to Cleanthes in this manner. Why cannot the word be used in a good sense as in Diog. L. iv. 37 ? Mr Hicks suggests fvpeat\oyiav.

63. Schol. in Horn. II. in. 64, ap. Bekker, p. 99 Se eV ovro) b. 23, K^edvdrjs Aeo-/3&lt; TipaaOat,

I. classes this the Wachsmuth (Comm. p. 15) among but there is more likeli fragments of the work irepl Oewv, it to the hood in Krische s view (p. 433) that belongs irepl it from rov Tronjrov, for there is no reason to separate Cleanthes tried to the frags. 55 and 65. Perhaps explain the existence of a currency of the epithet ^pva^ by gilded statue of Aphrodite at . For the figurative mean = which is all that is ing of xpva-ovs precious, perhaps on Ant. 699. implied in the epithet, see Jebb Soph.

Se 64. Athen. Xill. 572 f., 77-0/31/779 A^poS/T??? iepov w? jrapa A/3u8r;fOt9, c^crt HdfjL&lt;j&gt;i\o&lt;;- /eare^o/iei/?;? ev TTOTC TToXeo)? 8otXe/a TOI)&lt;? TOWS avrf) yap T?}&lt;? &lt;f&gt;povpov&lt;f

ei&gt; Kal Qvaavras, &5? tcrropet KXedvBrjt; roi? Mu^t/cotf, Tr\eiovas wv piav, KCLTCL- fj,edv&lt;T06VTa&lt;; eraipa? TrpoaXa/Beiv /cXet? /cat TO KOifjiT]devTas avrovs ISovo-av, dve\o/j.evr}V TO? 8 T64YO? V7rep(3d(rav, aTTayyelXai Tot? AfivSijvois. rovs dv\elv TGI avTiica fji0 o7T\a)V d(f)iKOfjLvov&lt;{, /J,V

ru&gt;v KOL tcparrjo-avTas Se rei^cov yevop,evovs eyKparetf

TTJ dfroSiSovras \ev0epia&lt;&gt; xapiaTrjpia Tropvr)

js vaov iSpvcracrdai. and the of : cf. , worship Aphrodite Ourania at Corinth (Becker s Charicles, p. 246). doubtless to the The object of Cleanthes was explain away to the discreditable legends attaching themselves gods, at and thus in the present instance the debased worship THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 293

the accident of a historical Abydos is shown to be due to characteristics of circumstance, and not to the essential to is however considerable doubt as the goddess. There see Introd. 51. the genuineness of this fragment, p. Anecd. 65. Schol. in Horn. Od. I. 52, ap. Cramer, Sa&lt;rvvef TOV Trepl Oxoii. III. 4-10, 6\o60poi&gt;o?] K\edv0r]&lt;i

TWV o\WV (frpOVOVVTOS. Horn. 55, Wachsmuth also quotes Eustath. in p. 1389, * et? Kal TOV \T\avra... oi fiev d\\T)yopov&lt;riv T^V dxiifiaTov TcdvTwv alriav Kal TOV aK07riaroi&gt; rrpovoiav T)]V o\oo^)pova "ArXoi/ra vooveiv, w? rov inrtp o\u&gt;v fypovovvra

Sio Kal &&lt;; wv fypovncniKov. oK\edv9i]s, (j&gt;aa-u&gt;, Cf. Cornut. de nat. d. c. 20, TO o rr]^ (ip^ova-ri^ 8t TO TWV o\oo$pova 8 avrov ( \r\avra} elptjffOat Trepl rwv Kal r?/9 irdvrwv avrov o\wv &lt;j&gt;povT%iv Trpovoela-Oai, Flach Glossen u. Scholien zur ^epuv o-twr/jpiW See also identified Atlas with Hes. Th. p. 7G. Clcanthes -irpovoia, of the world as holding together the framework (cf. efis)- 114 ed. Bekk. v. 66. Apollon. soph. lex. Homer, p. 8e 6 pw\v (K. 305), KA,eai/07y? 4&gt;i\6cro(f)o$ ai TOV \6yov, Si ov fjLW\vvovrai op/uai &lt;f)r)o-t 8rj\ova-0at r Wachsmuth I. 18): This frag, is taken from (Comm. p. TO cf. Zcno, frag. 1GO, StaX/i7ret T^? TJrvxns favraffTucbv Stob. Eel. Kal TTaOrjTiKov VTTO TOV \6yov ^aKe^y^vov. ;l 8 01 ev rot? rrdOecnv ovre-f II. 7. 10 p. 89, 10, Trdvres In this connection we d-n-oa-TptyovTai TCV \6jov. may school as observe that Odysseus was taken by the Stoic de Const. 2. de one of the few typical wise men (Sen. 1, is the earliest known instance of the Benef. 13. 3). This word d\\r]jopla. ed. Nietzsch 67. Certamen Homer, et Hesiod., p. 4, 18,

torn. I. fasc. E\\rwo&lt;? (in act. societ. philol. Lips. 1), pev 294 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Kal Matoz/a coni. Hellanic. &lt;ydp K\edi&gt;07)&lt;; (sic Sturz, frg. 171 et Welcker ]). ep. cycl. p. 149 pro fiiova) \eyovcrt (jrarepa Ofjujpov). This is taken from frag, Wachsm. Comm. I. p. 17. Cf. Procl. vit. Gaisford Horn. ap. , p. 5 1C, 01 ovv avrov fjiev 2/zfpfatOf a7ro(f&gt;aiv6fjLevot, MatWo? p,ev elvat. ib. Maiova avi Trarpo? Xeyovcriv p. 517, &lt;ydp (scil. EXXai/t/eo? Kal Aa/iao-rr}? /cat Trarepa.

68. vit. Porphyr. Pythag. 1, 2, KXeai/^? eV TU&gt; Tcav K ^uQiKwv ^vpov, Tvpov r^9 Supta? (scil. Mnesarchus, the father of Pythagoras). o-troSeta? Be Kara-

Xa^ofV?;? roi)&lt;&gt; ^a/itou? TrpoGTr\evaavra TOV ^ tear %ov e^TTopiav fiera crlrov rfj vrjcray Kal 5 Tl/J,rjuf}Vtu 7ro\iTela. Hvdayopov 8 e/c Trai&wv et? Traaav OVTOS avrbv fAfiarjaiv ev(f&gt;vov^,r6i&gt; ^Ivrjaap^ov dTrayay^lv ei? Tvpov, Ki 8e rotv XaXSai ot? Gvcnavra TOVTWV 7ri 7T\eiov Troirjaai, 7rave\d6i&gt;Ta 8 et? evrevdev rov llvdayopav Trpwrov /j,ev ^epe/cvBrj ra&gt;

8 r&5 &&gt; 10 o/xt\/;crat Bevrepov Ep/AoSa/iafTt Kpe&&gt;0iAt eV 8 6 i,a/i&) 7} 8?; wpdaKovTi. \eyet KXeaf^?/? aXXou? etvat

o t, TOV Trarepa avroO ^vprj^ov d-TTo^aivovrai. TMV Af)/jivov dTroi/crja-dvToav evrevOev Be Kara Trpd^iv et f ^. e\06i&gt;Ta Kara/Jielvai Kal darov jeveaOat. TrXeoi/ro? Be rov 15 M^T/o-ap^ou et9 T^y IraXtay (rvp,TT\evcravra TOV HvOa-

yopav veov ovra Ko/jaBfj crcfroBpa ovcrav evBai/j,ova Kal TO& e/? aTroTrXeucrai. 8 v&lt;TTpov ai/Trjv Kara\eyei avTov Kal 8vo ILiivovcTTOv Kal dBe\(j)ov&lt;f Tvppijvov Trpea/Surepof?. also Wachsmuth quotes Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 129S. &N Be K\edv6r)&lt;; (MSS. Neaz/^?;?) 2i)pto&lt;? 77 Tupto? (fuit

Pythagoras). Theodoret, Graec. aff. cur. p. 8, 43, o Be (MSS. Neai/#?79) Tvptov (llvdayopav) 6vo/j,dei. This fall frag, must stand or with frag. 64. The facts THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 295

which those statements are in the life of Pythagoras with discussed Zcller, concerned will be found fully by pre- in 1. 16 some foil. After evZa^ova Socratics, I. p. 324 wanted. such word as al&lt;r0ea0ai seems

nominibus, v. 3, 69. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluviorum - e/caXerro Se TO KavK&lt;i&lt;riov ? TrapdKeirai 8 [avry] 6&gt;o Si air Lav Bopea? TO -rrporepov Kopeov Koirrj roiavr^v. Xi6vr) V dp-ndaa^ rrjv \\pxrovpou Bt eptanicriv 7n0v^av nva Ka\ov- eis \6&lt;$&gt;ov N^avrrjv 0vyarepa, Ka-njveyKev ^ viov 5 KOI eyewnrev etc T^ Trpoeiprjuevn*

Se KaJKOffO? Bia 8e TO ^poa^oevO o&gt;o? Koirr} Bopeov. roiavr^v. p,erd TJJV

K K 6Sei\oi&gt; Bopeov KoiTW, fcal et? po eva rwv w wv Kavtcaaov, o Se Upo^0ev^&gt; ejx P^ voi^va^ avrov r Sid6e(Tiv avara^v, tcai Karavoi^a^ elvaL rov aev irarepa ^cra? vrXe/crw cp, 8e Zei)9 eTTi(f&gt;avel^ 15 TO 8 et? rov Kav- K o&gt;o? areraprdpo)&lt;je- n^v TTOL^VO^ rov peTovoada-as, Trpoa-eSrjaev avry

f ^ ra a5? on &lt;rn\d&lt;rxya, wrropet ^ 7 in the The treatise rfe ^/MWUS was composed perhaps the or but all or nearly all reign of , are fictions. authorities which the author cites impudent to Hercher s For further information see the Preface and 3. edition of the tract (Lips. 1851) especially Nem. I. Seuvtov : cf. Find. 3, 2. Bop^ov KoCrr! Oprvyla o0i Horn. II. XXIV. 615, eV StTruXw &lt;j&gt;a&lt;rl \\preuiSos. evvds dedwv efji/jievai vvu&lt;j&gt;dwv. saw that some words 10. ,Ta,&gt;p&lt;|&gt;eefc. ^ytteiibach 296 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

had fallen out here, since a reference to is required. He supplied therefore the words within brackets and substituted dvara/Awv for dvcnravcov. For dvcnravwv dvap-rrdfav (Reinesius) and dva&lt;nrwv (Dodwell) have also been suggested.

70. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. V. 4, yevvarai $* ev avrw

(Caucasus) fioravr) Hpo[*.r&gt;0io&lt;? Ka\ovfJ,evrj, f}v MrjSeia Kal (Tv\\eyov(Ta \eiorpi/3ov(ra, TT/JO? dvTiiraQeias TOV tcaOu? 6 Trarpo? e^p^craro, IcrTopel avros (scil. Cleanthes). Ilpopjecios, cf. Ap. Rhod. in. 843,

77 8e reto? y\a&lt;f&gt;vpf}&lt;; egeiXero ^wpia^olo o re (fxip^a/cov, ppd (fracrl Upo/jLijdetov KaXeeaOai, where a lengthy description of the plant and its virtues is given. Prop. I. 12. 9, num me deus obruit, an quae lecta Prometheis dividit herba iugis.

71. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. xvil. 4, yevvdrai 8 lv aura) () fiordvr] Ka\ov^evrj Xapuria r}v &lt;al&gt; yuvatKes eapo? dp^opevov rot? rpa^ii\oi^ TrepiaTrTovcri Kai VTTO TWV dvBpav auf^Tradea-Tepov dyaTrdovrai- Ka6&lt;a&lt;s ev a icrTopet K\env0r/&lt;; Trepl opwv. Xapio-fo: Hercher thinks this word is invented from the name of a city in Arcadia.


a 72. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6 , p. 76, 3,

7re8a&gt;e reXo? eVri TO 6/j,o\oyov/jiva)&lt;; rrj &lt;^vcrei fyjv. Cf. L. vii. Clem. Alex. Diog. 87, Strom, n. 21. 129, p. 497 P., 179 S., KXedvdijs Se (scil. re\09 yyeiTai) TO opoXoyov- ev r3 o ev rfj (f&gt;v&lt;rei %r/v ev\oyL&lt;Trelv, rfj TWV Kara eK\oyfi Kectrdac THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 297

423 In the extract from Clement, Krische, p. n., pro the words Se between tfv and ev poses to insert 10761/775 on the evidence afforded Diog. L. vn. rw ev\oyi&lt;rTeiv by a IT. 7. 6 9, who both expressly 88, Stob. Eel. , p. 76, rwv Kara attribute the definition ev\oyio-reiv ev rfj to Babylonius. His suggestion 4&gt;v(riv eK\oyy Diogenes n. and Heinze, is approved by Wachsmuth (Comm. p. 4) n. For the as to whether Stoic. Eth. p. 11 question into the Cleanthes first introduced the words rf, $vaet 120. definition, see on Zeno, frag.

Se e 73. Diog. L. VII. 89, (frva-iv XpixmrTros /J,ev Set re /coivr/v KOI ISitos avOpwrrivrjv 77 rtKO\ov0(0&lt;; %fjv, rrjv e o Se K\6rtV0775 TJ}V KOivrjv fiovrjv /cSe^erai (frixriv, p e-rrl re uKO\ov6elv Set, otVert Se /cal rfjv nepovs* TTJV Kal avrijv Si avrr^v aperijv &id0ea-iv elvat 6fjLO\oyovfievr)V ri rwv Sid riva e\.TrtSa 17 egwdev elvaL aipe-rrjv, ov fyofiov rj are rrerroiT]- re elvaL ov&lt;rp ei&gt; avrfj r^v eiBai/Jiovlav, ^v^f] rravros rov @iov Siaarpe^ea-dai /j,evr] 7T/30? n]v 6fto\oyiav Sia ra? rwv 8e TO \OJLKOV t,wov TTore peis egwOev rrpay- rrore Se Sid v fj.areiwv Tri9avorrjra^, rr^v KaTnxn SiSwcriv avvovrwv, errel i] (frvcns dfapfids dSiaa-rpofovs. Diogenes leads us to suppose that Cleanthes and to the of Chrysippus dissented as interpretation (frvcris, to allow that human nature and" that Cleanthes refused credible the is included. This however is scarcely (cf.

it is that Cleanthes next frao-.), although quite possible stress on cbvcns and KOLVOS vofios, cf. laid special Koivrj necne 1. Cic. Fin. in. 73, utrum conveniat frag. 48, 24, who is natura hominis cum universa. So Zeller, p. 229, 448. To attain this followed by Wellmann, p. conformity is (Cic. 1. c., an acquaintance with physics necessary Sto. Hirzel n. 112118, Chrysipp. ap. Pint. Rep. 9). pp. He thinks that Diogenes account is substantially right. 298 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

regards Zeno as the upholder of Cynicism in preference to which Cleanthes devoted himself to the study of cf. Heracl. fr. Heraclitus, 7, Sch., Bio Bel eTrea-Oai ru&gt;

%vva&gt;, rov Be COI/TO? vvov ol \6yov ^wovo-iv TroXXoi, eo&lt;? i&tav To the that Zeno had %ovre&lt;; &lt;f&gt;p6vrjaii&gt;. objection the already recognised Heraclitean Atxyo? as a leading physical principle, Hirzel answers that it does not follow that he also transferred it to the region of ethics, and that Cleanthes must be credited with this innovation. The latter part of the fragment has been included in deference to the judgment of Wachsmuth, but it appears doubtful extremely whether we are justified in tracing the epitomised views back to Cleanthes, because his name appears in the context.

8td0o-iv : for BidOecnv see 6p.oXo-yoD[itviiv on Zeno, frag. and for the 117, general sense cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. bl Eel. II. 7. 5 , p. 60, 7, Koivorepov Be rr/v dperrjv 8t,dde&lt;riv eival &lt;f)aat ^v^ns av^wvov avrf) jrepl o\ov rov /3iov. ar Zeller ov&lt;rn: (p. 238, 3) corrects

cf. 82. cx4&gt;op(ids, frag.

C 74. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6 8* eVrrlr , p. 77, 21, evBai/juovia evpoia /9/ou. Ke^pijTai Be KOI K.\eav0i)? ro5 opw TOVTW ev rot? eavrov crvyypdfi,/j,aai Kai 6 Xpi trtTTTro? teal ol aTro TOVTWV irdvres rr}v evBatfJtoviav elvai \eyovres 011% erepav rov Kairoi evBaipovos /3iov, ye \eyoi&gt;re&lt;; rrjv /j,ev evBai- lioviav (TKOTTOV CKKelcrdaL re\o? 8 elvai TO rv^elv 7-779 evBaipovias, OTrep ravrov elvai rw evBaifMovelv. Sext. Math. XI. Be Emp. 30, ev8at/j,ovia eo-nv, co? ol Trepl rov \\\edvdi]v, evpoia ftiov. O-KOITOV. For the distinction between o-/co7ro&lt;? and reXo?, C cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 3 teal , p. 47, 8, ean atco-ros pev TO

et&lt;f ro olov dcnrls 8 TrpoKCLfievov rv%eiv, rogoraif re\o9 rj THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

rov Trpofcetpevov revgis. (Bov\ovrai &lt;ydp

1 ) - repov elvai Trpo? TO reXo?, ib. II. 7. 0, p. 77, Wachsmuth believes the distinction to be due to Chry- in Cic. Fin. in. 22 is not sippus. The difficult passage in loc. On the whole really parallel to this: see Madv.

foil. : he that the dis matter see Hirzel, p. 550 argues tinction between CTKOTTO^ and reXo? was foreign to the earlier Stoa, and was introduced by Panaetius.

21 61 75. Clem. Alex. Protrept. vi. 72, p. S., P., 6 drro 09 KXeavdrjs Se 6 Ao-crei;?, T?;? Sroa? 0tXocro^&gt;o9 8e e ov Oeoyoviav TroirjritcTjv deoXoyiav d\7]6ivrjv on OVK (iTrefcpv^raro rov Oeov rrepi vrep el-^ev

oov ecrr ; a/cove epwra? fji ?;

ov, Sifcaiov, oo~toi&gt;, eucre/Se?, KCL\OV. 8eov, KpaTovv eavrov, xpijcri.fAoi , ov, avOefcacrTOV, alel a-v^epov, dvw8vvov, evdpecnov,

es, cirvtyov, eV/^eXe?, Trpaov, cr(f)o8p6i , alel , Siapevov.

257 The same occurs in Strom, v. 14, 110, p. 715 P., S., rov 6eov introduced by the words ev rtvi Trotr/fiari Trepl ( and also in Euseb. P. E. xin. 13, p. 67 J. Clement s mistake in referring these lines to Cleanthes refer to the conception of the deity, when they really ethical sumnunn boninu, is obvious, and has been pointed

420 f. Krische thinks that out by Krische, p. they may the which have formed a poetical appendix to prose work, Ka\wv. is either the Trepl reXou? or the Trepl Ka\ov, Seven of these epithets, viz. SiKcuov, xprja-i/u-ov, are of Seov, crvfA^epov, XuatTeXes", w$e\ip&lt;ov predicated 300 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

dyaOov in Diog. L. vn. 98, 99, with the addition of d and cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 aiperov ev-^ptjcrTov: , p. 69, 11, Trdvra 8e elvat teal rdyaBd (a(f&gt;e\ifj,a ev^prjcrra real crvfi- (fiepovra teal \vcriT\fj KOI cnrovSaia teal irpeTrovra teal tca\d teal ib. 5 1 ib. oiteela, , p. 72, 19, IP, p. 100, 15 foil. Chrysippus proved similar statements by his favourite chain arguments, Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 13, Cic. Fin. in. 27, Tusc. V. 45.

3. tavrov : Kparovv pointing to the virtue eytepdreia (frag. 76) : reliquum est, ut tute tibi imperes, Cic. Tusc. n. 47.

4. cf. L. VII. avcrr^pov: Diog. 117, KOI avo-rrjpovs Se

elvat, Trdvras TOI)&lt;? Stob. II. &lt;f&gt;acriv aTrouSalovs, Eel. 7. 11*, p. 114, 22.

av0Ka&lt;rrov : in Ar. Eth. IV. 7. 4 the at)0e acrTo? is the mean between the d\a%a&gt;v and the eipcov, and is described

as ro&gt; aXydevriKos teal /3t &&gt; teal TCO \6yw. We may com then Stob. Eel. n. ll m pare 7, , p. 108, 11, where the wise man is said to be a7rXo)&lt;? teal aTrXaa-ro? while TO elpwvev- alone to the ib. eV Trdcrtv belongs &lt;/&gt;aOXo&lt;?, p. Ill, 11, veiv TOV &lt;ro(f)6v. 5. otyopov, dXvn-ov, cxvuSwov : because the wise man is

7. Some word has dropped out here. In Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 1. c. the words are cr&lt;/&gt;aXe? &lt;f&gt;l\ov evrifiov omitted and 6/jLo\oyov/jLevov is placed at the end of 1. 6.

In 1. Euseb. c. we have two complete lines but evdpe&rov is from 1. thus : repeated 6, evnpov evdpearov 6/j,o\o- this yov/j,evov: is perhaps the original reading, where the error is due to evdpea-rov having been copied from the previous line in place of the genuine word. The reading in book V. is due to the scribe s eye wandering from the first evdpeo-rov to the second. Mohnike however thinks (p. 51) that Eusebius had the work of Clement THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 301

the second before him while writing, arid that evdpearov the metre. is mere patchwork to mend L. VII. re elvai rov 8. &TWJ.OV, cf. Diog. 117, arvfov crocfoov. s ii. 7. 11 1012. v, cf. Stob. Eel. , p. 115,

ev 76. Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 4, 6 Se K\edvO^ " 6 TWO? QvviKoh eltrwv on, ir\r)yt} -rrupo? TO eVtTeXea/ Ta iKavbs ev ry tyvxil yevrjrai Trpo? xal Kara aXXoz/Ta iV^ik Ka\elrat tcpaTO?," e-m^epet

" e?rl Tot? 7 Vt T TO ? orav 8 a^ ? P /iez^ , 77 lo-^j)? orav S yyevi]rac, ey/cpdreid eanV &lt;f&gt;avel&lt;riv e^evereo^ Se BLKCUO- eV T0t9 vTrofievereois, uvBpela- -rrepl T9 a|ta? /cat e/eXicrei9 Trepl T? aipeo-et? a-a&gt;&lt;j)po&lt;rvvi)." bt II. 7. 5 /cat Cf. Stob. Eel. , p. 62, 24, O/AOWU? wo-7rep e o-Ttv i/caj/o? eV ovrw TO{) crftj/iaT09 TOt-09 vevpots ev roi real TWO? eo-Ttt- Ifcavbs fcpiveiv rj T?;? ^^X^9 tV%i;9 2. See also Zeller, p. 128, 2, 256, itai Trpdrreiv i} /MI. This is the material air-current which irXri-rt Trvp6s. the an efflux forms the foe/MOvi/cov of individual, being hero his ethical of the divine irvev^a. Cleanthes brings on his : teaching into close dependence physical of TOI/OS we have at 24. of the physical aspect spoken frag. i.e. as s is as tavo9 ro^o? Zeno 0/361/770-19 explained -jrv^, Cleanthes was influenced by tVxi)9 t /c/aaT09. Possibly

: the Stein, the Cynic use of r6i/o9 see passage quoted by n. 37. Not that Cleanthes intended to deny Psych, p. 30 that virtue is the fundamental position of Zeno wisdom, it to be for we shall find that he expressly declared cf. 89. Still, he teachable (frag. 79): and frag. expanded in two and developed his master s teaching ways, (1) by virtue rests on a showing that the doctrine of psycho and an in logical basis, (2) by clearing up four cardinal virtues. Zeno s statement with regard to the THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Zeno or held, appeared to hold, that fyovrjw is found in a double as the sense, (1) essential groundwork of all and virtue, (2) as the first of its four main divisions. This inconsistency is therefore removed by retaining &lt;f&gt;p6vr)o-is in the but wider, substituting eyicpdreia in the narrower see Hirzel u. 97 meaning: p. foil. Chrysippus on the other hand restored as ^pov^a^ the cardinal virtue, but represented that by eirumjfiri notion of ^povrjtr^ which was common to Zeno and Cleanthes.

: so &lt;f&gt;avto-iv Hirzel, p. 97, 2, for cirifdvcnv, coll. Stob. b2 Eel. II. 7. o , 61, 11, Se p. eytcpdreiav 7ricrTr//j,r)v dvvTrep- $a-Tov T&lt;av Kara rov opdov \6yov fyavevrwv. We find also definitions of ejKpdreta in Diog. L. vn. 93, Sext. Math. ix. which are 153, substantially identical with that

cited from Stobaeus : in Stob. it appears as a subdivision of while both &lt;j)po&lt;rvvT), in Diog. and Stob. the word efipevereov is found in connection with Kaprepia, a sub division of dvSpeia. No doubt their account is derived from Chrysippus : it is that noteworthy, however, op&lt;9o9 in \0709 these definitions : see 1. appears Hirzel, c., Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 262. In giving this prominent position to Cleanthes ey/cpdreta was following in the of steps Socrates (Xen. Mem. I. 5. ov 4, Spd ye Xprj -rrdvra dvSpa vrmvaitevov r^v eytcpdreiav dper^ elvai KprjTrtSa), and the Cynics (Diog. L. vi. 15). &&*s : the full definition, probably that of Chrysippus, 1 appears in Stob. Eel. II. 7. o* , p. 59, 11, Sticaiotr^v Si brumjftrjv dfirovefjtrjriKriv rfc ib. 7 f rifto? eied&lt;rra&gt;,* p tt/i i o4i, 1 o.

aipeVtis Kal tKK\(o-is : cra)(f)po&lt;Tvvri is concerned with the of b2 regulation the 6 fjui Eel. n. 7. 5 P (Stob. , p. 60, 13, ib. 5 M p. 63, 16), and is therefore directed to the avoidance of irdffij, which is amcjiig &lt;/&gt;dy9o5 defined as b \6ya&gt; Eel. II. 7. 10 (Stob. , p. 90, 11). THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 303

499 179 S., 77. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 22, 131, p. P.,

rov lo&gt;- Bio Kai K\nv0r}s ev ru&gt; Bevrepy Trepl jfiovfjs o avros BiKaios Trap eKacrra BiBdaiceiv ^ Kpdnjv &lt;j)&gt;](rl TO BUaiov Kai ru&gt; Sie\6vri re Kai ei Balfjicov dvi]p irpmrto n drro rov a-vpfapovTos KarapdaOat cos ao-e/Se? irpdy^a rw ovri ol TO drro rov SeSpaKori- do-epels yap av^epov StKaiov rov Kara vopov ^wpL^ovre^. Socratem ex- Cf. Cic. Off. ill. 11, itaque accepinms haec natura cohaerentia secrari solitum cos qui primum cui ita sunt Stoici assensi opinione distraxissent. quiclem esset id utile esse censerent ut et quidquid honestum non honestum. id. I. 33, nee utile quicquam quod Leg. utili- recte Socrates exsecrari cum solebat qui primus esse tatem a iure seiunxisset : id enini querebatur caput exitiorum omnium. with TO For Socrates, who identified TO co^eXt/iov 150 foil. Cleanthes, as we dyaOov, cf. Zeller, Socrates, p. asserted that the was also have seen (frag. 75), good school in see and : for the general &lt;rvp&lt;j&gt;epov riiftSupov 2. Zeller, Stoics, p. 229,

a as ?} rerrapas) 78. Diog. L. VII. 92, TrXetWa? (elvai per Kai Kai Avriirarpov. ol Trepl K\edv0r}V \pva-i7nrov thinks that this means that Zeller, p. 258, simply of the Cleanthes enumerated the various subdivisions to four cardinal virtues. Hirzel, p. 97, 2, prefers suppose of which that it is due to the mistake placing fypovntris, on the same level as is the source of the several virtues, the four main divisions of virtue.

re elvai avrtjv 79. Diog. L. VII. 91, SiSa/crriv re\ov? Se Kai ev rra rrpwrv Trepl TI&gt; dpertjv) XpvaLTnros

traceable to Socrates, but This is, of course, ultimately THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

was also enforced by the Cynics: cf. Diog. VI. 10 (Antis- thenes) Si&aKrrjv direSeiicvve TTJV dperrjv, ib. 105, apeovcet 8 avrois Kal rr/v dpertjv SiSatcTrjv elvai, icadd ev TOO HpaxXei.

80. L. VII. Kal Diog. 127, fivjv TI]I&gt; dperrjv \pvcmr7ro&lt;f Se fi&V dTroftXrjTr/v, K\edv6r)&lt;; di&gt;a7r6/3\r)rov, o fj,ev a-Tro-

i /3\ rjrr}v Bid fieOyv Kal fjieXay^oXlav, o 8e dva7r6/3\r/rov Sid

On this point Cleanthes is in agreement with the L. vi. Cynics (Diog. 105), whence Wellraann, p. 462, infers that Zeno s teaching must have been in agreement with Cleanthes rather than with Chrysippus. See also the

authorities cited by Zeller, p. 295, 3, and add Cic. Tusc. II. 32, amitti non potest virtus.

: but Zeno held ^0T]v that the wise man ov fieOva-Ojj- creadat, (frag. 159).

(itXa-yxoXtav : Cic. Tusc. ill. 11, quod (furor) cum mains esse videatur quam insania, tamen eiusmodi est, ut furor in (/zeXa7^oX/a) sapientem cadere possit, non possit insania.

Pepcuovs : is shared KaToXij\|/is although KaTa\r)-^ri&lt;? by the wise man with the fool (see on Zeno, frag. 16), its especial cultivation and possession belongs to the wise man cf. only: Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 184, 185. Cf. also Sext. Math. n. 6 on (quoted frag. 9). According to Hirzel, p. 68, 3, the meaning is not that Cleanthes denied that the wise man would get drunk and so lose his virtue, but that the of his strength KaraXrtyeis is so great, that even melancholy and drunkenness fail to shake him. In support of this he quotes Epict. diss. I. 18. 21 23, rt?

OVV OV OVK CT I a^TT7/TO9 ; ^ ICTTTJ V OvSeV TCOI&gt; OTTOTT poai- TI ovv av rovrw ri perwv. Kav^ia ij ; av otW/ze^o? rj ; rl av TI ev fjL\ay^o\oi)v ; V7rvoi$ ; OVTOS p,oi, eVrti/ 6 dvi THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 305

II. 17. 33, 7J

Kal ov fjiovov eyprjyopws d\\d Kal KaOevScov Kal Kal ev fj,\ay^o\ia. He thinks that the later Stoics invented the distinction between oivovcrOat and fiedveiv to explain the divergence between Cleanthes and Chry- sippus on so important a point as the loss of virtue. So substantially Von Arnim, Quellen Studien zu Philo. p. 106.

81. Diog. L. VII. 128, dpe&Ket 8e aurot? Kal Sid

&lt;w? ol Trai TO? %pr/cr0at rfj dperfj, Trepl KXedvdrji e crrc Kal dva7ro(3\riTO&lt;; yap Trdvrore rfj ovar) -reXeta 6

1&gt;s 82. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 d , p. 65, 8, irdvra^ yap K Kal oiovel (j)opfj,d&lt;f ^eti&gt; &lt;f)i&gt;&lt;r&lt;j}&lt;? 7T/30? dpeT^v,

ra&gt;i&lt; Kara o6ev r}fAiafj.fleia&gt;v \6yov e^ecv K\edvdr/v

ovras elvai Te\eiu&gt;devra$ 8e cr7rov$aiovs. pev &lt;pav\ov&lt;; For this sense of the word cf. 73 d&lt;j)op[xds. frag. " Stob. d(f)op/j.ds d8iacrTp6(f)ovs imcorrupted impulses." b:i Eel. II. 7. 5 9 , p. 62, e^etv ydp (rov avQpwwov) d(f&gt;opfjids Kal rov Trapd rrjs &lt;f)vcre(i)&lt;t vrpo? rrjv KaOijKovros evpeaiv Kal Trpo? rrjv T&V 6p/j,wv evcrrdOeiav Kal TT^O? rd? VTTO-

^ovds Kal 7T/30? r9 aTrove/jLija-eis. As a general rule, how

" " " ever, it is contrasted with opprj as aversion )( impulse

towards," Stob. Eel. n, 7. 9, p. 87, 5, Sext. Pyrrh. in. 273,

eyKpdreiav...v ratv TT/^O? TO Ka\ov opp,als Kal ev rat? a?ro rov KaKov d^opp^al^, ib. Math. XI. 210. Cleanthes re garded our capacity for virtue as innate, but whether at the same time he denied an innate intellectual capacity is open to question, cf. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, n. 735. M. ix. Cf. Aurel. 1, d^op^d^ ydp 7T/3oetX?/0et Trapd r?;? crews, wv oto? re eari vvv &lt;frv a/u,eX?/cra9 ot)^ SiaKpivetv rd


TOV: so Zeller, (p. 243, 1), for TO.

Tljxiap-Pciwv : so Wachsm. for MSS. ?7/ua/z/3eiaiW. Meineke reads fu/ua/ii/3etW. The meaning is that men possess latent capacities which must be brought into play by their own exertions, if they would attain to perfection, cf. Cic. Tusc. III. 2, sunt enim ingeniis nostris semina innata virtutum, quae si adolescere liceret, ipsa nos ad beatam vitam natura perduceret.

83. Themist. Or. II. 27 C, el 8e av excrete ri? Ko\a- Keiav elvai rut TlvOiw 7rapa/3d\\et,v TOV /3acri\ea, yLpvcmr-

TTO? /jiev v/4tv KOI K\edvdr)&lt;; ov (Tvy^caprjaec teal o\ov

rj 6 e/c ot &lt;f)i\ocro(j)la&lt;f rfjs 7roiKi\rjs %opo? (f&gt;d&lt;rKOVT&lt;&gt; rr)v avrrjv aperffv KOI aXrjOeiav dvSpos KOI 6eov. This doctrine depends on the divine origin of the human soul. Hence the Stoics could say that good men were friends of the gods, and Chrysippus declared that the happiness of the wise man was as great as that of Zeus, since they only differ in point of time, which is immaterial for happiness. Cf. Procl. in Tim. Plat. II. 106 f, ol 8e diro rr/s TO&lt;? Kal Tr]v avrr/v dpeTijv elvai 6eu&gt;v tcai dvOpwTrwv elpr/Kaatv. Cic. Leg. I. 25, iam vero virtus eadem in homine ac deo est neque alio ullo ingenio praeterea.

84. Galen. Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. 6, v. p. 476 K., rr,v TOV KXedvOovs yvoofArjv inrep TOV TraBrjTiKov TTJS T(iSvoe TWV eirwv. fyaivecrdai 4&gt;r)&lt;ri

TL TTOT eV^ OTI /3ov\ei,

Trav o Troielv. , \oyi&lt;r/Ae, /3ov\o/j,ai

A. val /3aai\iK6v ye Tr\rjv o/Lttu? eiTrov 7rd\iv.

0. (av dv eTriOv/jid) Tavff" OTTWS yevrjcreTat. Ta TavT\ dfjioiftdia RXedvOovs (^rjcrlv elvat

eicSeiicvvpeva Tt}v Trepl TOV TradrjTiKov r/;? THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 307

rov ra&gt; avrov, i 76 8?) ireTToirjKe Aoyio-jjiov

ov ct&gt;9 eralpov eraLpw. 3. v MSS. 2, Y" Xo-yio-jj.ov...pa&lt;ri\iKo -y e^ei eVrt ev ye Wyttenbach /3a&lt;ri\i/c6v Mullach, fiaanXiKOV

z/ai, Mein. we should read rroidv Scaliger, /3. 7. Perhaps

\ojLa-fj-6v. ..eyw fiacriKiKos. oo- 4. &lt;5v Meineke, Mullach, &&gt;? MSS., Wyttenbach. this comes either Mohuike, p. 52, thinks that fragment from Trepl op^rfS or vrepl \ojov. Posidouius uses the verses to prove that Cleanthes was in substantial agreement with himself in supposing that the various functions of the qyepoviicov are radically this is to confound a distinct. Zcller, p. 215, 3, says that rhetorical flourish with a philosophical view, and it may be added that Posidonius must have been hard pressed at all. for an argument to rely on this passage Hirzel, Posidonius however, pp. 147 160, labours to prove that is right, but he mainly relies on frag. 37, OvpaOev ela-icpi- veaOac rov vovv, where see note, and is well refuted by Stein, Psych, pp. 163167.

85. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. ix. 1, v. p. 653 K, TT La BIOCKOV- ev rfj Trepl 7ra6wv paypare re /cat VTTO rpiwv 8vvafj,erav, eVi^u^Tt/c^? s Kal \oyi(TTiKr/s r?/? S avrfjs 6 TlocreiSwvios e\eev elvac Kal rov K\edvdrjv. Though there is no direct proof that Cleanthes adhered to the eightfold division of the soul, yet everything points that he that way, and Hirzel s opinion (p. 138) only

: 84. recognised three divisions is unfounded see on frag. rather to The present passage of Galen ought perhaps cited as a be added as a testimonium to frag. 84 than distinct fragment, since the whole argument of Posidonius, so far as we know, was founded on the dialogue be- 202 308 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

tween and \oyi&lt;rfj,os #17*09. For 8vvdfj,i&lt;; see Hirzel, II.

p. 486, 1.

86. Stob. Florii. o Be 108, 59, K\edv0r)&lt;; eXeye rrjv

XVTTI)! tyv^S TTapd\V&lt;TlV. This appears to be the only remaining indication of the position of Cleanthes as regards the definition of the rrdOrj, but it is not without significance. Zeno had pro defined as bably \vrrr) \0709 crv&lt;noXr) "tyv^s (see on Zeno frag. 143), but Cleanthes saw his way to a better

explanation from the standpoint of rovos : the soul of the wise man, informed by right reason, is characterised if by lirjfljs, itcavo? rovos, evrovla, but the emotions over power the natural reason of a man, there supervenes a resolution of tension, drovia or daQeveia. This view of the emotions was adopted by Chrysippus, cf. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. V. K. 387 77 6p6r) tcpia-is egijyeirai fj,erd r^9 Kara, see rrjv tyv)(r)v evrovias: especially the long passage be ginning ib. p. 404 K. where the view of rrdOos as drovia or d&deveia is explained at length by Chrysippus. With regard to \v7rrj cf. Tusc. in. 61, omnibus enim modis fulciendi sunt, qui ruunt nee cohaerere possunt, propter magnitudinem aegritudinis. Ex quo ipsam aegritudinem \v7rrjv Chrysippus quasi solutionem totius hominis appel- latam putat. ib. II. 54, animus intentione sua depellit pressum omnem ponderum, remissione autem sic urgetur, ut se nequeat extollere. No doubt Cleanthes, like Plato, derived Xv-rrrj from \vo): Plat. Crat. p. 419 C. See also

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 130.

87. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. in. 5, v. 332 K., ov pwov r (i\\d teal real At \pvcwnros K.\edi&gt;dr)&lt;f ]vu)V ero//i&)9 avrd riQkacriv (scil. roi)9 ^&gt;o/5ou9 Kal rd&lt;; \vrras Kal rrdvff ocra 7oiavra rrdQr) /card rrjv Kaptiav cruviaraa dat) = Zeno, frag. 141. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 309

that Clcanthes Hirzel s contention (p. 152 f.) placed and that hence we are to the r/yepoviKov in the brain, 21. is controverted Stein, explain Pint. plac. IV. 5, by from this for we have seen that Psych, p. 170, passage, the Hirzel the irdQt] are affections of rfyepovt/cov. replies and on the (p. 154) that appal -n-ddij, though dependent distinct from it. The jyefioviKov, are yet improbability is cor of Hirzel s whole theory lies in the fact that, if it to the whole Stoa rect, Cleanthes was in vital opposition of down to Posidonius on the most important doctrines an inference not to be accepted, psychology. Such ought no one unless the evidence conclusively points to it, and will affirm that such is the case here.

88. Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 74, d\\d KXeavdrp elvai pijr d%iav e Kara $v&lt;nv avr^v (r/Sovrjv) Be TO /card [avrrjv] ev ru&gt; /3tw, KaQd-rrep icd\\vvrpov &lt;f&gt;v&lt;rtv eivaL. to Cleanthes, not an dSid- ri is, according merely devoid of dj-ia, but also -rrapd c/&gt;iW, being entirely &lt;f&gt;opov see on 192. of. Diog. L. vii. 105, and Zeno, frag. " a but must be KdXXwrpov cannot here mean broom," All kinds of "an ornament": see Suidas s.v. personal the to adornment appeared to the Stoics, as to Cynics, wore the be contrary to nature: Zeno rpifiwv (Diog. same dress for males and L. vii. 20), recommended the forbade men to be erat- females (frag. 177), and young piKws KeKoarfjbrjpevot (frag. 174). Bekker. Hirzel discusses this avTt]v is bracketed by He thinks that the first passage at length (pp. 8996). contains a climax: r/Sovrj has no connec part (pr)re...@i(i&gt;) tion with virtue and therefore is not dyadov (Kara fyvaiv) ; Hence further, it has 110 d%la and is not even TrpoiryfMevov. did not rd Kara with Zeno and Cleanthes identify &lt;j&gt;v&lt;riv 310 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

TTporjyaeva : for in that case they could not have treated as Zeller and irpoqyfUva dSid&lt;j&gt;opa. Wellmann are, there in Cleanthes fore, wrong regarding attitude towards plea sure as his is cynical ; rather, position that pleasure in this is the itself (for force of the second avrrjv which should be is retained) d8id&lt;popov in the narrower sense.

1 Cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7 14 , p. 81, ovre 8e Trporjyaeva ovr d7TOTrporjypeva... q$ovT)v rrda-av KOI rrovov teal el rt a\\o roiovro. Next, Kara elvai is a &lt;f&gt;v&lt;riv ^ gloss, and when this is struck out we should supply d%lav e-^eiv with Be In KaOdrrep Ka\\vvrpov. short, Cleanthes treats plea sure as an eTriyevvrjua (Diog. L. vn. 86) : cf. Seneca Ep. 116, 3, voluptatem natura necessariis rebus admiscuit, non ut illam peteremus, sed ut ea, sine quibus non possumus vivere, gratiora nobis faceret illius accessio. But it does not follow because that, virtue consists in TO 6ao\oyov-

/ie i/&&gt;9 rjv, therefore Ty &lt;j&gt;va-i everything, which is Kara

is 1 &lt;bvcriv, or Cf. Stob. Eel. dperrj uere-^ov dperrj^. 7. 7 , 9 Start, p. 80, tcdv, (fraai, \eya)fj,ev dStdtyopa rd aw^artKa Kal rd e TO /CTO?, 7T/30? ei/o-^/xoi/ta? ^ffv (ev (airep eari TO avrd ov evSaifjLOvcas) d&idfopd &lt;f)a/j,ev elvai, fid Ata Trpo? TO Kara ov8e KOI (f&gt;vaiv e^eus Trpbs 6pfj,i}v d^op^riv. Rather, we have seen reason to hold that the class of rd Kara

(frvaiv is wider, or, at any rate, certainly not narrower than that of rd 7rpor}jfj,eva. Indeed, this is apparent from the present : 6 Be Kara elvai passage Apxeo^/no? &lt;}&gt;vcriv fiev o;? Ta? eV uao"xdXy Tpi%as, oi)^l Se Kal d^iav %eiv, i.e. there are some things which be Kara and may &lt;j&gt;v&lt;riv yet devoid of d%ia. Again, Sextus obviously treats Cleanthes as more hostile to pleasure than Archedemus, but the view which Hirzel would attribute to Cleanthes is scarcely to be from that of distinguished Archedemus. Certainly, the passage from Seneca ought not to be quoted as an illustra tion of Cleanthes meaning: contrast n^re Kara THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 311 elvat with natura admiscuit. The inelegant repetition to contrast TO rcd\- of ^...elvai has an object, namely, ev whereas, on the other Xwrpov with T? fia(rxa\p rpix&lt;n, it cannot be inter hand, if the second avrrjv is retained, the first and to the latter preted differently to ai/n)i&gt;, press would make nonsense.

el 89. Stob. Floril. G. 37, KXedvOys e\eyei&gt;, KCIKOV ea-riv r/Sovr/, TT/JO? rols dvOpw-rro^ T)}V &lt;j&gt;povr)(Tii&gt; SeSoadai. This is no doubt directed against the Epicureans. v KaL re\os eivai Diog. L. X. 128, TT)V rjSovrjV dpxn Xeyopev also wrote a treatise rov fjiaxapiaxi tfv. Chrysippus TO elvai TeXo? described as ciTroSet^i? Trpo? /JLI] rrjv ^Bovrjv L. VII. furnishes a proof that (Diog. 202). rrjv &lt;j&gt;povr)a-iv

: see Cleanthes upheld Zeno s view of virtue as QpovrjirK

on frag. 76. Cf. Cic. de Senec. 886o-6ai : so Meineke for SiSoadai. natura sive dens nihil 40, cumque homini sive quis huic diviuo muneri ac dono mente praestabilius dedisset, nihil tarn esse inimicum quam voluptatem.

illius tabulae 90. Cic. Fin. II. 69, pudebit te quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. iube- in bat eos qui audiebant secum ipsos cogitare pictam et ornatu in tabula Voluptatem, pulcherrimo vestitu regali esse Virtutes lit ancillulas, solio sedentem : praesto quae ofticium ducerent, nisi nihil aliud agerent, nullum suum earn tantum ad aurem admo- ut Voluptati ministrarent et ut caveret ne nerent, si modo id pictura intellegi posset, offenderet animos hominum quid faceret imprudens quod " nos aut quicquam e quo oriretur aliquis dolor. quidem aliud Virtutes sic iiatae sumus, ut tibi serviremus ; negotii dei v. solent nihil habemus." Cf. Aug. de civit. 20, 312 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa virtute consti- tuunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis, qui virtutes quidem probant, sed eas voluptatis corporalis tine raetiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam, istas propter ipsam, tabulam quandam verbis pingere, ubi voluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina considat, eique virtutes famulae subiciantur, observantes eius nutum ut faciant quod ilia imperaverit, quae pruden- tiae iubeat ut vigilanter inquirat quo rnodo voluptas et salva sit iustitiae iubeat ut beneficia regnet ; praestet quae potest ad comparandas amicitias corporalibus com- modis necessarias, nulli faciat iniuriam, ne offensis legibus vivere secura non fortitudini voluptas possit ; iubeat, ut si dolor corpori acciderit qui non compellat in mortem, teneat dominam suam, id est, voluptatem, fortiter in animi cogitatione ut per pristinarum deliciarum suarum recordationem doloris aculeos tem- mitiget praesentis ; perantiae iubeat, ut tantum capiat alimentorum et si qua delectant ne per immoderationem noxium aliquid valetu- dinem turbet et voluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate Epicurei maximam ponunt, graviter offendatur. ita vir tutes cum tota suae gloria dignitatis tanquam imperiosae cuidam et inhonestae mulierculae servient voluptati ; nihil hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius et minus ferre bonorum et verum quod possit aspectus ; dicunt.

Further references ap. Zeller, p. 235 239. Epiphan.

Haeres. III. 2. p. 1090 C KXedvBrjf TO dyaOov icai ica\ov is \eyei elvai rd&lt;; ^Bovds a stupid blunder of the epitoma- tor: cf. Krische, p. 431. Hirzel, p. 96, 1, holds that it is merely an exaggeration of Cleanthes position : see on frag. 88. pulcherrimo vestitu: this illustrates K(i\\vvrpov in frag. 88. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 313

out that these words si modo...possent: Madvig points and are not a of belong to Cleanthes statement, part Cicero s comment. Virtutes ut ancillidas: on the controversial character

ire see 430 432. In of the work pi r)Sovf)&lt;i Krische, pp. the Epicurean system virtue has only a conditional value, L. X. 138 8 id Be as furnishing a means to pleasure. Diog. 8elv ou 81 ri]v rjSovrjv teal rds dp eras aipetcrdat, Ka9d uxnrep real rrjv larpiKr/v 8id rrjv vyieiav,

91. Epict. Man. c. 53.

8e u&gt; Kal fiyov ^ , Zev, crvy 77 OTTOI TTO& VJMV eifil 8iaTTay/J,evos, 7

o? yevo/jievos, ov8ev rjrrov

The first line is quoted by Epict. diss. n. 23. 42, and two lines by id. ib. in. 22. 05, iv. 1. 131, and IV. 4. 34. cuius Senec. Epist. 107, 10, et sic adloquamur lovem Cleanthes gubernaculo moles ista dirigitur, quemadmodum noster versibus disertissimis adloquitur; quos mihi in nostrum sermonem mutare permittitur Ciceronis disertis- si boni consules si dis- simi viri exemplo. placuerint ; in hoc secutum Ciceronis plicuerint, scies me .

due, o parens celsique dominator poli, nulla mora est. quocumque placuit ; parendi adsum impiger. fac nolle, comitabor gemens, bono. mal usque patiar, quod pati licuit ducnnt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.

See also the commentary of Simplicius on Epict. 1. c. These celebrated lines constitute the true p. 329. answer of the Stoa to the objection that the doctrine with the assertion of free- of jrpovoia is incompatible 314 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

will. Zellcr 182. The matter is p. put very plainly in the of passage Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 2, Diels p. 571, at in the note on Zeno quoted length frag. 79. The spirit of Stoicism survives in the words of a modern writer :

"It has ever been held the highest wisdom for a man not to submit to merely Necessity, Necessity will make him submit, but to know and believe well that the stern thing which Necessity had ordered was the wisest, the best, the thing wanted there. To cease his frantic pretension of scanning this great God s world in his small of a brain to know that it had ; verily, though deep beyond his soundings, a just law, that the soul of it was Good that his ; part in it was to conform to the Law of the Whole, and in devout silence follow that ; not it as questioning it, obeying unquestionable." (Carlyle, Hero-Worship, chap, n.) Marcus Aurelius often dwells on the contrast &lt; between rd e 7?/ui/ and rd ovtc e&lt;f&gt; rjplv.

Of. X. KOI ru&gt; especially 28, on povw XoyiKw &)&&gt; 8e8orai, TO etcova-Lax; r eTrea-QairolsyivofAevois rooe eireadaL fy-i\6v, ira&lt;Tiv So ib. VI. 42 VII. dvaytcalov. 41, ; 54, 55 ; Viii. 7 ; XII. 32.

92. Seneca Epist. 94, 4, Cleanthes utilem quidem iudicat et hanc partem (philosophiae quae dat cuique personae praecepta, nee in universum componit hominem, sed marito suadet quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem, patri quomodo educat liberos, domino quomodo servos regat), sed imbecillam nisi ab universe fluit, nisi decreta ipsa philosophiao et capita cognovit. The branch of philosophy here referred to is known as the Trapaiveritcos or vTroQeriicos TOTTO?. Aristo regarded it as useless, and it is very possible that his "letters to Cleanthes" (73-^69 KXcavffijv 7riaro\(av 8 Diog. L. VII. dealt 163) with this controversy. Cf. Sext. Math. vn. 12, Kat o ApicrTa)v Xio&lt;&gt; ov a;? re /J,6vov, &lt;j&gt;a&lt;rl, TrapyreiTO rr/v THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 315

But TO oV&&gt;&lt;eA.e? /cat rjv Kal \oyiKrjv Oewpiav aXXa /cat rov r)6iKov KCIKOV rot*? (f)i,\o(ro&lt;j)ova-iv vrrdp^eiv rov re roTTOf ? rivas crvfATrepieypafav, KaOdtrep rrapaiverucov /cat rov vrroderiKov rorcov TOUTOU? yap et? rirdas /cat in which Philo of rraioaywyovs rrirrreiv. The words described the TOTTO? v-rroderiKos illustrate Seneca s Se /cat rwv statement: Stob. Eel. II. 7. 2, p. 42, 18, eVet ovarLva^ e/c 8iaKi/jieva)v dvOpwTrwv Trpovoiav TrotTjreov, Sv TrapaiveriKwv \6ywv (a$e\el(r6ai a-v/jifiaivei, pr) Tr\drecnv Sid rrpoaevKcupelv rot? Ste^o8t/cot9 r/ xpovov oid eVetcreye/CTeo^ crrevoxwpLas rj nvas dvayfcaias acr^oXta?, /cat rov vTToOeriKov \6yov, St ot- ra? Trpo? T?)y dcr(pd\eiav ev ijTa T^9 eKacrrov ^p?;cre&)? vrro9r)Kas eVtro/iaf? Cleauthes to . The importance attached by irapai-

illustrates the of Stoicism : see also ri practical spirit

Hirzel, II. p. 10-i.

con- 93. Oic. Tusc. in. 76, sunt qui unum non ut Cleanthi solantis puteiit maluni illud omnino esse, placet. is a of (Trapa/ivdtjriKr)) branch TrapaiveriKr) and is concerned with removing the rrdOrj, cf. Eudorus ap.

Stob. Eel. II. 7. 2. p. 44, 15 6 8e Trepl rwv d-jrorpeTrovrcav ecrrt eviwv KoXelrai Trapa/iu^rt/co?, 09 Ka\oi&gt;fAv6s TT/JO? is 7ra0o\oyiKos. Cf. Sen. Epist. 95, 65. As emotion the founded on false opinion (see on Zeno, frag. 138), duty of him who offers consolation to another is to explain that what appears to the other to be an evil is not really so. that the malum illud : the context in Cicero shows

reference is particularly to death, for which cf. Zeno, frag. 129. The construction is not to be explained by an ellipse of docere or the like, but rather esse is nominalised so that in inalum. ..esse = TO KCIKOV. . .elvat. This is common Lucr., dicani see jVIunro on I. 331, 418 and cf. Verr. v. 170, quid 316 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

in criicem tollere ? Cicero even writes : inter optime valere et gravissime aegrotare (Fin. II. 43). Draeger, 429.

94. Cic. Tusc. in. 77, nam Cleanthes quidem sapi- entem consolatur, qui consolatione non eget. nihil eniin esse malum, quod turpe non sit, si lugenti persuaseris, uon tu illi sed stultitiam luctum, detraxeris ; alienum auteni tempus docendi. et tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse hoc Cleanthes, suscipi aliquando aegritudinem posse ex eo esse ipso, quod summum malum Cleanthes ipse fateatur.

Cicero s criticism here is twofold: (1) that what is called consolation is really only instruction, which is ineffective to assuage grief, because it is inopportune, and as the wise who is is regards man, aTraOrjs, unnecessary ; (2) that grief may be caused by baseness, which is an evil. Cf. Tusc. II. 30. This cannot be treated as merely containing Cicero s comment on frag. 93, for we have the additional statement sapientem consolatur, which is surely not an inference from Cleanthes definition. The statement is strange and not to perhaps be entirely explained in the fragmentary state of our knowledge, but it is not inconceivable that Cleanthes held that the wise man ought to be reminded of Stoic when attacked principles by ^e\a&lt;y^o\ia or when in severe in of his pain, spite e/3aia9 /earaX?;-\/ret&lt;? (see on 80 and cf. Stob. Floril. 7. 21 frag. 0X76^ pev TOV &lt;ro$6v, 8e. Cic. /j,rj jBaa-avi&aBai Fin. V. 94, quasi vero hoc didicisset a Zenone, non dolere, quum doleret ! Zeno, frag. 158): cf. generally Sext. Math. XI. 130 140 and

139 el S a7rX&3&lt;&gt; 8ta&lt;7/cet rovrl esp. on fikv 6\iya)(f)e\e&lt;; ecrn, TrXeiWa? 8" T&lt; earai e^et o^X?7&lt;m&lt;&gt;, crvyKptaiv Troitov /cat a teal alpecrews (frvyfjs TT/JO? erepav tpeaiv &lt;J&gt;vyr/v, xal OVK UTOTTOV 6 dvaipecriv rr)&lt;? Tapa^r)&lt;f. oTrep yap THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 317

ri ov /3ov\erai paQelv ri ^a\\ov o%Xet Kal


95. Stob. Floril. 6. 19.

oo-rt? emdv^wv avejfer ala-^pov

ouro? troiricrei TOUT eai&gt; tccupov \dftr).

For the doctrine that virtuous action depends on the and intention and not on the deed itself, see Zeller, p. 264 181. cf. Zeno frags. 14G and

rov 96. Stob. Floril. 28, 14, KXeaytfr?? etprj ofjbvvovra

Kad" ov eav 7/Vot evopicelv ij eVtop/ceu o/jbvvai ^povov. OVTWS co? eTrireX-eawv rd Kara TOV opicov fjt,kv yap o^vvrj 8e e eVtreXeiv, evopicelv, edv irpdOecnv x&)y /A?) evriopKeiv. Stob. Floril. 28, See on frag. 95, and cf. Chrysipp. ap. 15.

97. Seneca de Benef. v. 14. 1, Cleanthes vehementius " beneficium non sit quod accipit, agit: "licet," inquit, etiani est : non fuit redditurus, ipse tamen ingratus quia latro etiani manus si accepisset. sic est, antequam iam annatus est, et habet inquinet : quia ad occidendum interficiendi voluntatem. exercetur et spoliandi atque non accepit, aperitur opere nequitia, incipit. ipsum quod dant beneficium non erat, sed vocabatur. sacrilegi poenas, ad deos manus quamvis nemo usque porrigat." This arid the two next following fragments probably Introd. 52. Eudorus come from the book irepl %aptTo?. p. Eel. n. 7. 20 the Academic ap. Stob. 2, p. 44, speaks TOTTO? as in Stoic terminology of 6 Trepi TWV ^apLrtav

rov Kara TOU? TT\i]&lt;rov arising IK TOV \dyov ri]v TT/JO?

because the is benefiting non sit: question concerning to an act of to a bad man, on whom, according 318 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Stoic principles, it was impossible to confer a favour d (Senec. Benef. v. 12. cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 3), ll p. 95, 5, Se pijteva (f&gt;av\ov /jiiJTc (afaXelcrQai p^re (afaXeiv, Plut. Comm. Not. 21.

saciilegi: the edd. quote Phsedr. iv. 11. Senec. de Benef. vn. 7. iniuriam 3, sacrilegus Deo quidem non potest facere : extra ictum sua quern divinitas posuit: sed punitur Deo fecit. quia tanquam De Const. Sap. 4, 2.

98. Seneca de Benef. vi. 11. 1, beneficium voluntas nuda non efficit: sed quod beneficium non esset, si ac optimae plenissimae voluntati fortuna deesset, id aeque beneficium non est, nisi fortunam voluntas antecessit ; non enim te mihi ut ob profuisse oportet, hoc tibi obliger, sed ex destinato profuisse. Cleanthes exemplo eiusmodi

utitur: "ad " quaerendum," inquit, et arcessendum ex Academia Platonem, duos misi alter totum pueros ; porti- cum perscrutatus est, alia quoque loca in quibus ilium inveniri posse sperabat, percucurrit, et domum non minus lassus quam irritus rediit: alter apud proximum circul- atorem resedit, et, dum vagus atque erro vernaculis congre- et gatur ludit, transeuntem Platonem, quern non quaesierat, invenit. ilium, inquit, laudabimus puerum qui quantum in se erat quod iussus est fecit: hunc feliciter inertem

castigabimus." Another illustration of the value of the virtuous in tention from apart the results attained by it, Cf. Cic. Parad. in. 20 nee enim peccata rerum eventu, sed vitiis hominum metienda sunt. Academia: see the description of this place in Diog.

L. in. 7 : there was doubtless a &lt;rroa attached to it, whence totum porticum infra.

circulatorem : a quack, mountebank: cf. Apul. Met. 1. c. 4, Athenis proximo ante Poecilen porticum circulatorem THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 319

mucrone infesto adspexi equestrem spatham praeacutam of : with devorare. Probably a translation 6avfiaro7roi6&lt;; the collected Becker, respect to these men see passages by Charicles. E. T. pp. 185 189, Jebb s Theophrastus, p. 227, tame and add Ar. Met, i. 2. 15, Isocr. Or. 15 213, where lions and trained bears are spoken of.

ait 99. Seneca de Benef. vi. 12. 2, multum, ut 31. Cleanthes, a beneficio distat negotiatio, cf. ib. n. 12, sibi reddi a benefit expects no return : non enim aliquid aut non fuit beneficium sed voluit (qui beneficium dat), negotiatio. J f r a translation of aTlcr ^&gt; negotiatio : probably xPVP l the Stoic wise man is described as the only true man of

1 II. II 8e rov business: Stob. Eel. 7. , p. 95, 21, povov

&lt;i)V dv8pa ^pri^ariariKOV elvai, yivcoaKovra d&lt;p Kal rrore Kal TraJs Kal ^P C rror -

100. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 3. 17, p. 655 P. 237 S., 8e rov Srcot/coO Kal rj K.\edv0ovs (f)i\ocr6(f)ov Troi^rt/c?) wSe TTCO? rd opoia 7pa0et

eOeXwv &lt;ro&lt;o? jjirj Trpo? 86%av opa, al^ra jev(r6ai, vroXXcoy Kal dvaiBea /jbrjBe (^)0/3oD aKpirov 86%av ovre Sixalav ov yap 7r\rj@os e ^et a-vveri]v Kpicnv 8e rovro KGV ovre Ka\i]v, o\iyois Trap di&gt;8pdo-i evpois.

Clement also quotes an anonymous comic fragment to the same effect: ala-^pov 8e Kpivew ra Ka\d raj

326 : vroXXft) ^o(f)a). Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. says die "hatte auch er (Kleanthes) den sensus communis, konnte er KOival evvoLai oder 7rpoX?/^et? gebilligt, wie dann so wegwcrfend und verachtlich liber das allgemeine

" Laienurteil aburteilen ? He concludes therefore that Cleanthes threw over altogether the Stoic concession to 320 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

rationalism in the doctrine of implied op#o&lt;? \6yos and but see -n-poX^e^, Introd. pp. 39, 40. Of. generally Cic. Tusc. in. 3, 4.

86av : this is changed to ftdgiv by Meineke, who is followed by Wachsmuth, and Cludius is reported as suggesting uXoyov for dfcpirov. The reason given for the " change by Wachsmuth is that Sogav male con- cum iungitur aicpnov" presumably because Soga implies but the words " rcpio-is, surely may mean undiscriminating " opinion as explained by the next line. The text is con firmed M. Aurel. IV. TO by 3, evfierdftoXov KOL atcpirov rwv ev&lt;pr]/j.tv SOKOVVTCDV. Cf. ib. II. 17. ov...ovT...ovT, is justified by Homer, II. vi. 450, a\\ ov rocraov fiot, Tpwwv /zeXet d\yo$ o-niavw ovr avrfjs r ovre E/ca/9779 Hptdfj.oio aW/cro?, K.T.\. Cf. Soph. Ant 952.

101. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14. 110, p. 715 P. 257 S., j/? Kara TO aicoTrwfjLevov rrjv r&lt;uv Sia/3d\\a)v etSwXoXarpiav e

Tra? oo-rt? et? dve\evOepos Sogav / to? 81} Trap etceiwr)*; reu^oyae^o? rca\ov

In Clem. Alex. vi. Protrept. 72, p. 21 S. 61 P, the same two lines are cited as the conclusion of frag. 75, but they are obviously distinct.

86av : for Zeno s cf. definition, Zeno, frag. 15. Cleanthes wrote a treatise separate -rrepi 0^77 ?, from which we may conjecture that the and the present preceding frag ments derived. Introd. p. 52. The described ^are Cynics vy veia&lt;; re teal Sogas as irpoKoa-^nara Kaicia&lt;; (Diog. L. vi. 72). The Stoics regarded them as -rrpo^^va (Dio? L. vii. 106). THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES. 321

n. 102. Mantiss. , (in paroemiogr. Gr. vol. p. 757) cent. I. 85.

dicoveiv Kpeicraov ; \eyeLV

This is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. II.

" : Inter ecclesiasticorum p. 8), whose note is as follows scriptorum sententias hie trimeter laudatur ab Meliss. I. 53 et a Maximo 10, vicl. Gregor. Nazianz. carm. d p. 157 ."

103. Stob. Floril. 42. 2.

KdKovpyorepov ov$ev om/SoX?}? ecrrt rrw rov rrerceiO fJievov \d6pa &lt;ydp drcar^a-acra dvarrX-drrei vrpo? rov ovSev ainov.

s Eel. n. 7. 11 denned, ap. Stob. , p. 115, 21, 8id(rTaart.v rrjv 8ia/3oX?)f fyaivofjievwv $&gt;i\u&gt;v -v^euSet on the basis that slander is &), and hence, reasoning true friend only connected with apparent and not with wise is ship, the Stoics declare that the man aSta/SoXo? both in the active and the passive sense (i.e. /^re Sm- their utterances are not /3d\\eiv ^rj-re Sia/3d\\ea-0ai), but

: n. who in consistent on this point see Zeller, p. 253 6, fails to notice this citing passages to the contrary effect discrepancy.

1 II. 7. II iKavws Se ica 104. Stob. Eel. , p. 103, 12, TTO\LV #?7? Trept TO aTTOV^alov elvai rrjv \oyov ecrriv ?/po)T?7cre roiovrov TroXi? pev &lt;el&gt; oiKrjrrjpiov Sovvai KaraarKva(T/j,a, et? o KaTafavyovras e crrt Si/c^v TOLOV- fcal \a/3elv, OVK dcrrelov 8rj TroXt? eariv ; d\\a prjv dcrrelov ecrriv TroXt?. rov eariv 77 TroXt? oltcriTjiptov dp r\

the : Introd. Possibly this belongs to 7roXtrto9 p. form 52. Cleanthes has here adopted the syllogistic


of which occurs so argument, frequently in Zeno s frag

ments : see Introd. 33. p. The Cynics line of argument is somewhat similar. L. vi. 72 ot; Diog. jap, (prja-iv

(Diogenes), (ivev 7roXe&lt;w&gt;? o&lt;eXo9 TI elvai dareiov aa-rclov

Be ?; TroXt? vop.ov 8e avev, TrdXetw? ovSev 6 &lt;eXof acrrelov dpa 6 vonos. Cicero s definition is as follows, Rep. I. 39, res. ptiblica est res populi, populus autem...coetus multitu- dinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus.

Cf. Ar. Pol. i. 2. 1253 a 37. inserted ci, by Heeren, who is followed by Wachsm. Meineke omits it and before 8 changes 8rj TroXt? into 77.

105. Seneca Tranq. An. I. 7, promptus compositus-

que sequor Zenonem, Cleanthem, Chrysippum : quorum tamen nemo ad rem publicam accessit, nemo uon misit.

See on Zeno, frag. 170.

106. Stob. Floril. 4, 90, TO 1)5 dirai- KXeai/^? e&lt;f&gt;rj

The same occurs in Stob. II. Eel. 31. 64, p. 212, 22, where Wachsmuth cites other authorities. Stein, Erkennt-

nistheorie, p. 326, quotes this frag, in support of his theory that Cleanthes refused to admit any inborn intel lectual capacity. Zeno declared vrjv eytcvrcXiov TraiSetav uXprja-Tov (frag. 167 and note), with which opinion this is not passage necessarily inconsistent, though it probably an advance in implies teaching. See also on frag. 53.

107. diss. IV. 1. to-eo? Epict. 173, TrapdSoga peit (f&gt;acriv 01 tcai 6 &lt;f)i\6(TO(f&gt;oi, tcaOaTrep K.\edv0r)&lt;; eXejev, ov fjL-ijv TrapdXoya.

rrapd8o|a : the Stoics themselves accepted and defended this description of their doctrines. Cic. Paradox. Prooem. 4 quia sunt admirabilia contraque opinionem omnium ab ipsis etiam Trapd&oga appcllantnr. Plut, Comm. Not. 3 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 323 ra Kotvd /cal Treptftor/ra, a 8t} rrapd&o^a real avroi, /u.er

t drorciav. r&gt;]v

108. Pint. vit. Ale. VI. 2, 6 fjuev ovv K\edvOrj^ e\eye rov eavrov etc rwv dorcov rols epcoftevov v&lt;ji f^ev KparelcrOai, 8 (ivrepacnals TroXXa? Xa/3a? 7rape%eiv ddifcrovy eavTu&gt;, KOL ra aiSota Kal rov TTJV yacrrepa \eycov \aifj,6i&gt;. This may be referred to the epwriKr) re^vr) or Trepl epeoTo?, In trod. p. 52. See on Zeno, frags. 172 and 173, and cf. Diog. L. vn. 24 (Zeno apoph. 7) \a/3rj 8id ecrrlv evrtSe^io? 77 rcSv WTCOV.

109. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 200, ot rrepl rov rovro elvai Zeno d8cd&lt;j)opov (TO rrjs dppevofAi^ias) fyacriv frag. 182.

110. Stob. Floril. 6, 20.

rcoOev rear apa ylverai fj,oi^wv 76^09 ;

etc KpiQiwvros dv8pos ev d(f)po8icriois.

P.OIXWV: for Stoic views on poi^eta, see Zeno, frag. 178.

Kpi9u3vTos : for this word cf. Buttmann s Lexilogus, s. v. E. T. 78. , p.

111. Pint, de And. Poet, c. 12, p. 33, Wev ovS at at? Kal &lt;j)av\w&lt;$ e^ovcriv, craro Kal A.vna6evri^- o fjiev K.r.\ ____ 6 8e TOV 7r\ovrov,

(f)L\ois re 8ovvai crwp,d r et? voaovs rreaov acaaai,

Sovvai r et? vocrovs rcecrov

The lines in question are from Eur. El. 428, 9, where 212 324 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Floril. gevois is read in place of &lt;&gt;i\ot9. Stob. 91, 6 quoting the passage has $i Xot&lt;?. The ordinary view of the school regarded TrXouro? as a TrpoijjfjLevov, and we have seen that Zeno concurred in this (frag. 128). It would be hazardous to infer from evidence of this kind that Cleanthes dissented from his master s opinion on this point : a similar question arises with regard to Sofa (frag. 101), but that word is am biguous.

L. VII. elae- 112. Diog. 14, eVt ou&lt;? Se Kal %a\fcbv Trparre TOVS Trepucna^evov^ (6 Ztjvwv) axrTe SeStora? TO KaQa ev rut irj evo-^Kelv, &lt;pr)cri KXedvdij*; irepl

For the title of the book see Introd. p. 53. The above is Cobet s text oio-re Wachs- ; omitting SeStora?, muth reads ^ak/cov for ^CL\KOV MSS., and also suggests evioTe for eviovs, but evlov? implies that the payment was not always exacted, while the article shows that, when made, it was made by all. Similarly Soph. O. T. 107 TOI)? avroevras X 1P^ Ttfttwpety riva? and Ar. Pac. 832.

113. Philodem. Vol. Hercul. vin. irepl &lt;/u\ocro(&&gt;y ap. col. v. K&lt;al ev &lt;rda&gt;i 13, 18, K\&gt;dv6r)&lt;? Trepl aT&lt;i)\r)&gt;&lt;t

KOI 7raiv&lt;el&gt; &lt;T?;&gt;? Ato7eVou? avTr)&lt;&lt;;&gt; /j,vr)&lt;/j,ovev&gt;ei xal ev avr&lt;u&gt;i Tov&gt;r&lt;a)i &lt;fjiiicpov&gt; vcrre&lt;p&gt;ov Ka0d&gt;7r&lt;ep

evLwv &lt;TTOI&gt;&lt;I- T&gt;ep&lt;a)&gt;0 &lt;&gt;xdecri&lt;v&gt; [1. eicOecriv]


Such is the restoration of Gomperz in Zeitschrift filr die Oesterr. Oymn. Jahrg. 29 (1878) p. 252 foil., who, in justification of this somewhat strange title, refers to a book by Aristocreon, the nephew of Chrysippus, entitled at XpycrtTTTTou rac^at (Comparetti, Papiro Ercolanense col. 46). For the circumstances of the burial of Diogenes cf. Diog. L. VI. 78. av-njs refers to the TroXtreta of Diogenes. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 325

12 114. Schol. ad Nic. Ther. 447, p. 36, Keil, o&oWes TO es \eyovTai, ol ixrrepov dva@alvoVT&lt;; irapd vewrepwv yap rjBij Kpaiveiv KOI diroirKtipovv rfv jXiiciav. ol oBovres OVTOL. K\dvOv]&lt;i Be rj/jiMV yevo/.iev(ov (pvovTai /eaXet. vvv aTrXtS? TOWS o&fora?. ffox^povLarfjpa^ avrov? TO 8e Bid TO dvievat awVoi)? KOI o-axfrpovio-rljpes o/Lta ry cr&fypov ToO you \a/jL(3dveiv T^/ia?. Hist, An. II. 4. Be ol For Kpavrftpes cf. Arist. fyvovrai /caXoOcrt reKevraloi Tot? dvOpunrois yopfaoi, ovs Kpavrrjpas, eiKoaiv real KCU It seems Trepl rd cry dvBpdcri yvvcugi. to infer that Cleanthes the Stoic is meant, and fairly safe more correct than the account given above is probably M. 35 Kara r^v rov that appearing in Etym. p. 742, TO elxoffTov eVo?, and Melet. ap. Cramer Qpovelv wpav -rrepl oBovTwv rti/e? Anecd. Ox. III. 82, 26 TOU9 Be /^wXtra? TWV TOV etcaXetrav Bid TO Trepl TI}V a-axfrpovio-Trjpas (frveaOai while the TOVS TratSa? &pav. Thus, apXea-0ai &lt;j&gt;povelv is in the four growth of the reasoning powers complete the attainment of teenth year (Zeno, frag. 82), &lt;ro)&lt;ppo&lt;rvv&gt;n conclusion of the third may well have been assigned to the

115. = Zeno frag. 184. APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.

1. L. VII. Diog. 169, &lt;a&lt;r! 8e Kal Avrvyovov avrov ovra Sid dicpoarnv, TI dvT\el ; TOV 8 eltrelv,

dvT\(5 ; TI S (TKCLTCTW T I yap povov oi^l ; S ovtc apSco,

KOI Trdvra TTOIW eve/co, ; Kal 6 &lt;^tXoo-o&lt;^/a? jap Zrjvwv avrov (Tvve^vfjiva^ev et? TOVTO, teal etceXevev o@o\6v &lt;f&gt;epeiv Pint, de dTrofopas. vitand. aere alieno 7, 5, KXedvdrj 8e o /SacrtXei)? Sid Avrvyovos rjpta-ra xpovov 6eaadfj.evo&lt;f ev rai? aXet? Adr/vats, eri, KXeai/^e?; aXto, faaiv, w /3a-

&lt;Tl\V, O TTOtoS eV6Kd TOV Se %T)V fJLOVOS d7rO&lt;TTJ]Vai /jLT}8e Cf. Stob. Floril. &lt;j&gt;i\o&lt;ro&lt;f&gt;ia&lt;;. 17, 28, XpvaiTnros 6 5lo\6)9 eiroieiro TOV eic Trdvv fiiov o\iya&gt;v, K\edv0r)&lt;; 8e Kal ajro \arr6va)v. diss. III. 26. TrcS? Epict. 23, KXedvOrj? &&lt;rev Kal a/z,a a"xo\d%wv dvr\wv. Senec. Ep. 44, 2, Clcanthes aquam traxit et rigando hortulo locavit mauus.

2. Diog. L. VII. 170, KaL 7TOT6 d6poia-0ev TO Keppa eKopiaev els pecrov TWV Kai yvwpipwv, &lt;f&gt;i]o-i, KXedvOrjs p*v /cat d\\ov K\edv6ijv SvvaiT* dv Tpefyeiv, et @OV\OLTO. 01 8 odev e^oi/re? Tpa(fjcrovTat, Trap eTepwv eVt^Toucrt ra

, dvetfj,eva&gt;&lt;; Kai-rrep &lt;f)i\oo-o(f&gt;ovi&gt;Tes. odev 8r/ Kal

6 K\edv0r}&lt;{ e/caXetro.

3. L. VII. Diog. 171, TrpoKplvatv 8e TOV eavTOV (3lov TOV T(av ev u&gt; 7r\ov&lt;ric0v, e\eyev, o-(f)aipl ai^To? 7171; aK\r)pdv Kal aKap-jrov epydfro-Qai, APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 327

Kal Be VTTO rwv 4. Diog. L. VII. 170, a-KWTTTo/jievos Kal oi/o? dxovtov irpotreBfyero- &lt;rvnpa0viTwv r)m%eTO, TO \eywv ai)T09 ^di/o? BvvaaOaL fiaarci&iv ZT/VWI/O? Qopriov.

Trore 9 SetXo9, 5. Diog. L. VII. 171, /cat 6vet,8i%6fievos Sta roOro,

ovet&icravTos rtz/o? et? TO 6. Diog. L. VII. 174, avrcp iiTrtevai ^ovKo^ai orav Se iravraxoOev , /cavw, Ufa, Kal Kal dvayi- ov vyiaivovra Trepivow ypd&lt;f&gt;ovra vwcrKovra, ira\iv f^evw.

3e Kal eavrto eVe- 7. Diog. L. VII. 171, 7roXXa/a&lt;? )TTev wv (\Kovaas Apio-rvv, TLVL, e^rj, eiruir\ffrrevii TroXta? ^ev e^oim, vovv l b\ 7eXao-a9, Trpea-jSvTr}, &lt;f&gt;r)&lt;ri, Se

ev 2&lt;ucrt0eou TOU TTOL-rjrou Qedrpa 8. Diog. L. VII. 173,

7T/309 avTov Trapovra,

019 ?7 e ol w aya&lt;r0evTS eVl ravrov ax^aro^. e&lt;/&gt; rov Se 2a&gt;&lt;ri0eov e%e$a\ov. i, rov jj.ev Kp6rr)a-av,

Be avrov eirl rf} \oiBopia TrpoaijKaro, rov ^Lovvaov Kal rov UTOTTOV elvcu, pei&gt; HpaicXea avrov &e $\vapovnevovs VTTO TWV TTO^TWV M opy%e*0at, Cf. Plut. do eirl r^ rvxova~r) /3\aa^/j,ia Bva-xepa^eiv. Adulat. 11.

eltrovros Be rivos 9. Diog. L. VII. 171, \\.pKecri\aov KOI el ^ rroielv ra Beovra, Travcrai, e^, M -^rer/e. yap Tot9 avro ri0et Kal \o7ft) TO KadfJKov dvaipel, yovv epyow o ou 7T/J09 bv Kal 6 A/3/cecrt\ao9, KoXaicevofiai, &lt;j&gt;r)orL a\\a i*e


10. Diog. L. vil. 173, e\e e Be teal 7 rot)? e* rov rrept- Trdrov ^ opoiov ri rcda^e^ rals at /caXw? \vpais &lt;j&gt;deyt;d- avrwv OVK aKovovai.

11. Cic. Tusc. ii. e CO, quibus (philosophis) homo sane levis Heracleotes Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse didicisset, a dolore dedoctus est. nam cum ex renibus laboraret, ipso in eiulatu clamitabat falsa esse ilia, quae antea de dolore ipse sensisset. quern cum Cleanthes condiscipulus rogaret quaenam ratio eum de sententia deduxisset, cum respondit: quia si, tantum operae philo- dolorem sophiae dedissem, tamen ferre non possem, satis esset argument! malum esse dolorem. plurimos autem annos in nee philosophia consumpsi ferre possum : malum est igitur dolor, turn Cleanthem, cum pede terram per- cussisset, versum ex Epigonis ferunt dixisse : Audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terram abdite 1 Zenonem significabat a quo ilium degenerare dolebat.

Dionysius 6 p.erade^evo^ is mentioned also in Zeno where see apoph. 52, note. For the quotation from the ,cf. Soph. fr. 194, 195. (Dind.) 3. renibus: but according to Diog. L. vn. 37, 166 and Cic. Fin. v. 94 the disease was ophthalmia 7. si: inserted by Madv. (on Fin. v. 94), who is followed by the later editors.

12. Stob. Floril. 82, 9 = Eel. n. 2. 16, Bid ri rot? ov 7ro\\(av Trapd ap^atot? (f&gt;i\ocro-

6V&)&lt;? TrXfiovs SteXafjityav rj vvv, on, elire, rore

epyov tf&lt;TKiTO, vvv Se

13. Diog. L. VII. 172, ptipaKiw TTOTC tTrv0eTO et aia-ddveraf rov 8 eTrtveva-avTos, Sid ri ovv, OVK , eyw aicr8dvo/j,ai OTI al APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 329

TL V 14. Diog. L. VII. 172, epojievov TWOS Sel TO! TO XCTTTOV vlw, -7-179 HXe/crpa9, e&lt;/&gt;?7, crlya atya

o?. The quotation is from Eurip. Orest. 140.

15. Stob. Floril. 33, 8, a-LwrrwvTos TOV KXedvQovs, t7ret TL ; Ka roi? (1X049 rt9 &lt;)i], crtyf fjirv rjv o/jH\elv.

aXX rocrtoSe avTov rot&lt;? i]Sv, e&lt;?7, oawTrep "jStov ftaXXov

Se TOV /cat e 16. Diog. L. VII. 174, 777369 fiov^pr/ XaXet9. \a\ovvTa, ov fyavXw, 6(^77, avupwirw

17. Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc. II. c. 13. 125 =

Stob. Eel. II. 31. 125 Wachsm., 77 ov TOLOVTOS 7rat9 eKelvos el 6 AaKwv, 09 KXeaz/07/v TOV (friXoo-otyov rfpa)Tr)o-6v dyadov

&lt;ucrei o TTOVOS eaTLv ; OVTO) yap e/ceii/09 fyaiverai Tre$VK(as ev utcrTe eivai KO\W&lt;&gt; KOL Tedpa/jifjievos 77/369 dpeTrjv eyyLov TOV TTOVOV TOV KaKOV vOfAlteiv T779 TayaOov ^&gt;ucre&)9 ) T"fjs TOV KaKov avTov 09 76 &J9 o/jio~\.oyovfjLevov /u.?} vTrdp^eiv ei dyadov Tvy^dvet (av eTrvvOdveTO. Wev Kal 6 KXeai^^ et9 dyacrOels TOV 7ra&lt;8o9 enrev dpa 7rpo9 avTov, a(/Ltaro9 dyadolo, $l\ov re/co9, oT dyopeveis (Horn. Od. IV. 611). Diog. L. VII. 172. Aaajyo9 TIVOS eiVoWo9, OTL 6 TTOVOS TGKOS. dyadov oia vvOeis (bfjo~i,v, otfyu.ciT09 6t9 ayavolo, (pL\ov a 7761/09 is an dSidffropov (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 p. 58, 3. it be inferred from Diog. L. vii. 102), but may perhaps it the this passage that Cleanthes classed among jrpo^y- 128. Antisthenes it as fjueva. See on Zeno frag. regarded dyadov (Diog. L. vi. 2).

18. Stob. Floril. 95, 28, KXedvOrjs, epwT(ap,evos TTWS

ei TU&gt;V dv Tt9 etT; 7rXoucuo9, etTref, eTTLdv/ALtov elrj Trevrjs.

19. Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc. II. 13. 63 = Stob.

Eel. II. 31. 63 Wachsm., K\edv0r)s, eTaipov aTcikvai 330 APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.

/ieXXoi/TO? Kal epwrwvros TT&J? av rjKtara d^aprdvoi, el-xev, i CKacrra (av Trap Trpdrreis 80*01779 e^e Trapelvai. Cf. Zeno, apoph. 42, and Maxim. Serm. 5.

20. L. VII. Diog. 173, \eyerat Be, &lt;j&gt;d&lt;rtcovTos avrov Kara Zrjvwva Kara\r)Trrov elvai TO 7)^09 e f et Sou?, veavlcr- Kovt TWOS evrpajreXovs dyayelv TT/JO? avrov KivaiBov eV /cal ea-K\Tjpaya)yr)fj,evov dypw, dgtovv aTrofyaiveadai Trepl rov tfOovs- TOV Se SiaTropovpevov veXeOcrat dirikvai rov dvOpwirov, &5s Se dfriutv e/ce?i/09 ayroi eTrrapev, e^w, etTrei/, , 6 ecrrti/. Cf. K\edv6r)s, yu,aXa6? Zeno, frag. 147. 21. Diog. L. VII. 172, fatrl 8e 6 Eicdrwv ev raw ^/petat?, evpopfov petparclov etVoi/ro? et o et? TT}V yacrTepa TVTTTWV teal ya&lt;TTp{ei, o elf TOI)&lt;? TVTTTWV fj.tjpov&lt;j pypi^ei, a-v TOI)? (f&gt;i], p,ev 8ia/j,Tjpio-fjLovf e%, /J,ipd/ciov. [at 8 ava\oyoi rd ov (fxovai dvdXoya Travras (rr}/j.aivovcri 717707- /tara.] Cobet brackets the concluding words. 22. Diog. L. VII. 176, KOI reXeura roj/Se rov rpoTrov

8ia&gt;8r)(rev avray TO ov\ov aTrayopevo-dvrwv Be rwv larptav Bvo -quepas d-rrea-^ero rpo^. teal TTCO? eo-^e /caXw? wcrre rof? aOro) Trdvra rd tarpoi/9 a-vvrjdr} (rvy-^wpelv. rov Be PTJ avao-^eo-Oai aXX elrrovra r}8tj avrq&gt; TrpocoBonropiJadai tcai ra&lt;? XoiTra? diro&lt;j^o^evov r\vrijaai. Lucian, Macrob.

19, K\edv0r)&lt;j Be 6 real Zr/va)vo&lt;t /j,adr)rr)&lt;; BidBo^of evvea Kal evevtjfcovra oiJro? errj eVt rov yeyovws &lt;f&gt;vfj,a ea-^ev ^ct Xou? Kat, 7r\06vra&gt;v avrut (nroKaprepwv Trap" eraipwv rivwv Kal ypapfAarcov Trpoo-eveyKdpevos rpofyrjv Trpd^as Trepl wv 01 y]%iovv (f&gt;i\oi, avQis rov d7roo-^6/j,evo&lt;; rpo(f&gt;Tj&lt;; egeXnre ftiov. Stob. Floril. VTTO 7, 54, K\edv6^ y\wrrt]&lt;j eXou? avrw OVK eBvvaro yevofievov rrjv rpo(f&gt;rjv Traparrefnrew (9

Be /cat o t avra&gt; &lt;ri) Be paov ecr^e arpo? rpo&lt;f&gt;r)v Trpocrrjyayev, TO rr\eov fie, e&lt;f&gt;rj, /3ov\ei tfBr) rtjs 6Bov Karavv&avra elra Trd\iv dva&rpefaiv, et; VTrap^ij&lt;f n]v avrtjv Kal e^tj\Bev rov /Stou. INDICES.

where is [The references are to the numbers of the fragments, except p. prefixed.]


Athenaeus xin. 563 e Z 173 xiii. 565 d Z 191 124 E Z 35 Achill. Tat. Isag. xiii. 572 f C 64 1-29 E Z 65 Augustin. c. Acad. n. 11 Z 153 133 c C 33 in. 7. 16... Z 125 C 45 Aelian. Nat. An. vi. 50 in. 9. 18... Z 11 148 Ambros. de Abraham, n. 7...Z m.l7.38...Z42,95 vr a Ithet. Anon. Tfx l P- Speugel de Civ. Dei v. 20 ... C 90 25 (Jr. i. 434. 23 Z deTrinit.xm.5.8...Z 125 Ehet. Anon. Ti\vr) ap. Speugel Aul. Gell. ix. 5. 5 Z 128 Gr. i. 447. 11 Z 26 Anon, variae coll. math, in Hulstchiana Heronis geom. de die nat. iv. 10... Z 80 et stereom. edit. p. 275 Z 28 Censorin. . xvn. 2... Z 77 Anton. Meliss. i. 52 Z 189 i. 4 C 28 Apollon. soph. lex. Horn. p. frag. lUBekk C 66 Certamen Horn, et Hes. p. 4. Arnob. ad Nat. n. 9 Z 54 ISNietzsch C 67 Chalcid. in Tim. c. 144 C 18 .Epict. diss. 1. 17. 10, Z 90 11 Z4,C2 c. 220 123 c. 290 Z 49 Arrian.Epict. diss. i. 20. 14 ...Z _ n. 19.1 4... C8 c. 292 Z 50 i. in 4...Z 162 n. 23. 42 ... C 91 Chrysost. Horn. Matt. 130 in. 22. 95 ... C 91 Cicero Acad. i. 36 Z 138 iv. 1. 131 ... C91 i.38 Z 134, iv. 1. 173 ...C 107 i.39 Z 34, 46, 86 iv. 4.34 C 91 1.41 Z 8,9, 11,15, iv. 8. 12 Z3 17, 19, 20 i. Z 22 iv. 158 b Z 156 42... 10, 18, 21, Z 11 vi. 233 b, c Z 169 n.18 xi. 467 d C 11 n. 77 Zll Z 153 xi. 471 b C 11 n. 113 11, xin. 561c Z 163 n. 126 Z41, C 28 332 INDEX FONTIUM.

Cicero Acad. n. 145 Z 33 Clem. Alex. - Strom, vn. 6. 33. . . C 44 de Div. ii. 119 Z 103 - vni. 9. 26... C 7 - Fam. ix. 22. 1 Z 186 Cornut. de Nat. De. c. 31 C 62 Fin. n. 17 Z 32 Cyrill. Lex. Bodl. n. 11. ap. n. 69 C90 Cramer Anecd. Par. iv. 190. . . Z 31 ni. 52 Z 131 iv. 12 Z 86 iv. 14 Z 120 iv. 47 Z 126 Dio Chrysost. iv. 60 Z 126 Diog. Laert. vi - iv. 72 Z 120 VI -v. 38 C44 v. 79 Z 125 v. 84 Z 151 v. 88 Z 120 Muren. 61... Z 132, 133, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155 Nat. De. i. 36 ...Z 37, 39, 41, 72, 110 i. 37 ...C 14, 15, 16, 17, 46 Cicero Nat. De. i. 70 Z 8 - n. 1315 ... C 52 - n. 21 Z 61 n. 22... Z 59, 60, 63 - n. 24 C42 H.40 C 30 n. 57 Z 46 - n. 58 Z 48 - n. 160 C 44 in. 16 C 52 - in. 27 Z 46 - in. 37 C 29 Orat. 32. 113 Z 32 Tusc. i. 19 Z 86 ii. 29 Z 127 in. 74. 75 Z 143 in. 76 C 93 in. 77 C94 iv. 11 Z 136 iv. 47 Z 136 v. 27 Z 127 Clem.Alex.Paedag.in.il. 74.. Z 174 Protrept. vi. 72... C 75, 101 Strom. n. 20. 105... C 44 - 11.20. 125... Z 187 H.21. 129.. .Z 120, C 72 n. 22.131.. C 77 v. 3. 17 ...C 100 v. 8. 48 ... C31 v. 12. 76.. .Z 164 v. 14. 95. ..Z 149 v. 14. 110... C 75, 101 INDEX FONTIUM. 333

53 Galen, nat. f acult. i. 2 (11. 5 K. ) Z Gemin. Elem. Astron. p. 53 C 91 C 35 Epict. Man. 53 (in Petau s Uranol.) 51 Epiphan. Haeres. i. 5 Z in. 2. 9 (in. H 36) Z 37, 79, 95,164,185 Epiphan. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. C 61 C53 Harpocration s.v. XeVxat 37) Irris. Gent. Phil. 14. 149 Euseb. P. E. xni. 13, p. 671. ..Z 654Diels C 21 679... C 75 p. p. 21. 1 ... Z 36 Hippolyt. philosoph. xv. 15.7 C28 18. 3 Z 54 20. 1 Z 106 20. 2...Z 83, C 38 ad Pentad. 38... Z 144 45 Z 23 Lactant.Epit. Inst. i. 5 Z39, C15 in II. 2. 1158. Eustatb. 506, p. m. 4 Z 153 37 Z99 . m. 7 Z120 m. 8 Z120 m. 23 Z 132, 144 G iv. 9 Z44 vii. 7 Z97 anim. morb. Galen de cogn. de Ira del 11 Z 109 v. 13. Kiihn Z 188 . de Ver. Sap. 9 Z 44 Galen in Hippocr. de humor. LonL inus ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 32 Z53 i. 1 (xvi. K.) 21.3 Z 88,040 Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. Z100 5(v. 241 K.) M Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 5 247 K.) Z 101 (v. Macrob. Sat. i. 17. 8 C 58 Galen et Plat. plac. n. Hipp, i. 17.31 C 60 283 Z87, C 39 8 (v. K.) 1.17.36 C 59 in. Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. 14 C 57 Z102 i. 18. 5(v. 322 K.) 1.23.2 C 29 Galen et Plat. plac. in. Hipp, Somn.Scip.i.14.19... Z 89 332 K.) Z141, C 87 5(v. Mantiss. Proverb, (in paroem. Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. Gr. ii. p. 757) cent. i. 85... C 102 2 367 Z 139 (v. K.) Maxim. Floril. c. 6 Z 190 et Plat. iv. Galen Hipp, plac. 10... Z Z139 Minuc. Eel. Octav. xix. 39, 3(v. 377K.) 41, 44, 111, C 14 Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. Z 143 7 (v. 416 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. N l(v. 429 K.) Z139 Nemes. Nat. Horn. p. 32 C 36 Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. p. 96 Z 93 476 K.) C84 6(v. Numenius Euseb. P. E. Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. ix. ap. C 85 xiv. 6. p. 733 1 (v. 653 K.) Galen Hist. Phil. 5 (xix. 241 K.) Z 36 9(xix.254K.)Z 91 10(xix.258K.)Z78 13(xix.271K.)C33 Olympiodorus in Plat. Gorg. 53 f Z12, C5 13 (xix. 272 K.) 034 p. 324 ...Z 164 31 xix. 322 K.) driven c. Gels. i. 5. p. __L_ 63. 739. ..Z 178 ...Z 106, 107 vii. p. INDEX FOXTIUM.

Plutarch Sto. Rep. 7. 1, 2 .Z 134

7.4 . C 76 Philargyriusad Verg.G. n.336. Z 57 8.1 . Z 29 Philo liber quis virt. stud, n 880 " . Z6 ...... Z157 80. l .Z 131 Philo mund. incorr. p. 505. 27. C 23 Virt. Mor. 2 .Z 131 - p. 510. 11. Z 56 3- Z 135 Thilo de Provid. i. 22 ...... 35 Z Porphyr. de Abstin. in. 19 ...Z 122 ii. 74 ...... C19 m. 20 ... C 44 Philodemtu c. 8 Z wepl tvaffi. 40, 117 vit. Pythag. 1.2 C 68 c. 9 ... C 16 Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. c. 13... C 54 10. 33 Keil - Z 52, C 20 p. 84G....Z 109 Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. . 28. C 49 21. 14 Keil ...Z112 C. 13. C 113 7re/)i0(\ocr6&lt;^w Proclus ad Hes. Op. 291 ...... Z 196 Philoponus on Ar. Phys. iv. 6. 213 p. a. 31 ...... Z70 Q Photius s. v. Xffo-xcu ...... C 61 Plutarch Ale. 6. 2 ...... C 108 Quintil. Inst. Or. n. 15. 3335 C 9 Alex. virt. 6 ...... Z 1G2 ii. 17. 41... C 5 Arat. 23. 3 ...... Z 148 ii. 20. 7 .. Z 32 Aud. Poet. 11 ...... C 55 iv. 2. 117... Z 27 12 ...... Z 197 - 12 ...... C 111 B Cobib. Ir. 15 ...... Z 106 Rufus Ephes. de part. horn. Comm. Hesiod 9 ...Z 196 P-44 Z84 Not. 23. 1...Z 120 - 31.5... C47 S 31. 10. C 25 de facie in orbe lunae Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. I.498...Z 113 3 6. C 27 Arist. 22 b. 29 Brandis Z 6 Plutarch defluv. 5.3 C 69 Dionys. Thrac. ap. - 5.4 C 70 Bekk. Anecd. p. 663. 16 ... Z 13 - 17.4 C71 Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 117 ...Z 114 2 frag. dean. Wytt.V . 134 ...Z 115 899 P. Z 121 139 ...Z 116 Plutarch Is. et Osir. 66 C 56 Horn. II. m. 64 ... C 63 Lycurg. 31 Z 163 xvi. 233... C 55 i. 3. 39 plac. Z 35 Horn. Od. i.52 (Cra

i. 4 . 10. . Z 23 mer A. O. m. 416) C 65

i. 15. . 5 . Z 78 Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 Z 29 n. 14. 2. . C 33 Nic. Ther. 447 C 114

n. 16. 1 . . C 34 Plat. Ale. 1.121 E... Z 82 n. 20.3 C 29 Seneca de - Benef. n. 31. 12 ... C 99 iv. 11.1 C4 - v. 14.1 C 97 iv. 21.4 Z 98 - vi. 11. 1 ... C98 v. 4. 1 ... Z 106 vi. 12. 2 ... C 99 - v. 5. 2 - Z 107 Epist. 82. 7 Z 129 prof, in virt. 12 Z 160 83. 8 Z 159 1.. quaest.Conv.ni.6. Z180 94. 4 ... C92 v. 10. 3 C 44 104. 21 Z 161 Soil. an. 11. 2, 3 ... C 45 107. 10 C 91 Sto. Rep. 2. 1 Z 162 108. 10 C 50 6. 1 Z 164 113. 18 C 43 INDEX FOXTIUM.

1 58 Seneca de Ira i. 10. 7 Z 158 Stob. Eel. i. 22. 3 . p. 199. 10. Z - 1. 21. Z 64 Nat.Quaest.vii.19.1 .. Z 75 23. p. 200. 1 de Otio Sap. 30. 2 ...Z 170 . 24. 2 . p. 205. 25. C 33 1 18. - Tranq.An.i.7...Z170,C105 25. 3 . p. 211. C 29 Sext. Emp. Math. n. 7 Z 32 25. 5. p. 213. 15. Z 71 1 vii. 151 ... Z 15 26. I , p. 219. 12. Z 71 - vn. 2-27 ... Z 10 p. 219. 14. C 32 vn. 228... Z 7, C 3 48. 7. p. 317. 15. C 37

. vn. -2.% ... Z 7 49. 33. p. 367. 18. Z 92 vn. 2 IS ... Z 11 49. 34. p. 369. 6. Z 93 vii. 253 ... Z10 n. 2. 12. p. 22. 12... Z 5 vii. 372. ..Z 14, C 3 7. 1. p. 38. 15... Z 146 vn. 422 ...Z132 p. 39. 5...Z 137

. 128 vn. 426 ... Z 11 _ 5. p 57. 18... Z

viii. 355... Z 8 _ 51*. p . 65. 8. . . C 82 vni. 400... C 3 6\ p. 75. 11...Z 120 ft 3 ... 72 ix. 88 C 51 6 . p. 76. C e 124 ix. 101 ... Z 59 _6 . p. 77.20...Z ix. 104 .., Z61 _6. p. 77. 21... C 74

1- ix. 107 ... Z 62 7 . p. 84. 21... Z 131 e ix. 133 ...Z IDS ll . 99. 3 Z 148 xi. 30... Z 124, C 74 ll i .p.!03.12..C104 xi. 74 C 88 31.64.p.212.22.C 106 xi. 77 Z 128 Stob. Floril.4. 90 C 106 xi. 190. ..Z 179,181 4.107 Z202 xi. 191 ...Z 180 6. 19 C 95 .11.4 Z 11 6.20 C110 n.70 C3 6.34 Z 201 m. 200 Z 182 6. 37 C 89 in. 205 .Z 180 6.62 Z 192 in. 206 .Z 183 14. 4 Z 189 in. 245 .Z 179 28. 14 C 96 m. 246 Z 180 36. 26 Z 200 Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a. 4 ...... Z 76 42. 2 C 103 in Epict. Man. 53... C 91 . 43. 88 Z 165 Stob. Eel. i. 1. 12. p. 25. 3... C 48 . 95.21 Z 199 b I. 29 .p.34.20... C 14 108.59 C86 - p. 35. 9... Z 42 Strabo vii. 3. 6 Z 198 - 5. 15. p. 78. 18... Z45 Suidas s. v. Xetrxcu C 61 e 6 8. 40 . p. 104. 7. Z 76 Syrian, ad Metaph. 892 b. 14 ... C - 10. 14. p. 126.17. Z 35 II. 5\p. t32.26. Z 51 12. 3. p. 136. 21. Z 23 T 13. 1. p. 138.14. Z 24 15. 6-\ p. 146. 19. C 26 Tatian ad Graec. c. 3 Z 47 - Z 55 p. 146. 21. Z 68 16. 1. p. 149. 8... Z 78 Tertullian de Anim. c. 5 ..Z 89, C36

- -- 17. 3. p. 152. 19. Z 52 c. 14 Z94 - c. 25 C36 - p. 153.7... C 24 1 - 18. I , p. 156. 27. Z 69 Apol. 21 Z44, C13 - .- 19.4. p. 166. 4... Z 67 Marc. i. 13 Z41 c 2 - 20. l . p. 171. 2 Nat. n. Z46 ...Z 54, C 22 4 Z 38 C . Z 51 - 21. 6 p. 187. 4... C 28 Prats. Cup. 7 INDEX FONTIUM.

Themist. de An. 68 a Z 96 Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. vt. 14. Z 45 72 b Z43 Theon progymn. 12. p. 251. ..Z 108 90 b Z 140 Theoph. ad Autol. in. 5. p. Or. n. 27 c C 83 119 c Z 184, C 115 Or. vin. 108 c Z 196 Or. xm. 17lD Z 196 Phys. 40 b Z 70 Tbeodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. in. Varro Ling. Lat. v. 9 CIO v. p. 780 Z 164 59 Z 105 R. Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. iv. 12. Z 35 B. ii. 1. 3 Z 81 iv. 20. C 33 ii. 4. 9 .. .. C 44 v. 25. Z 106 Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. v. 25 p. 934 s. v. Z88, C40 Zonaras ffo\oiKlfru&gt; Z 31 II. INDEX NOMINUM.

Cbrysippus, p. 7, 20, 27, 28, 34.30. 38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, Z 2, 7. Z 109. Academics, 11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 49, 52, 66, 72. Z 82. Alcmaeon, 74, 76, 79, 100, 102, 130, 139, 143. Z 30. Alexander, 144, 100, 107, 185, C 3, 8, 9, 13. Z 30. Alexandria, 18, 19, 23, 24, 37, 41, 43, 44, 4s Z 5, 61. Alexinus, (17), 70. 226. Amoebeus, p. Cicero, p. 34, Z 120. Z 81, 113, C 27. Z 3 Anaxagoras, Cleanthes, p. 1, 23, 35, 3053, r Z C 29. Anaximander, si, 7, 13, 14, 35, 45 A, 52, 50 (54), 58, Z 52. Anaximenes, 79, 93, 120, 128. p. 228. Antigonus Carystius, Crates, p. 3, 31, Z 105. 228. Gonatas, p. 2, 5, 6, of Mallus, Z 198. 25, Z 126. Antiochus, p. 17, Critolaus, p. 111. 114, C 59. Antipater, p. Cynics, p. 1821, 30, Z 9, 125, 149, 19, 20, 22, 53, Z 3, Autisthenes, p. 102, 104, 107, 171, 172, 170, 177. 195, 23, 109, 162, 163, 171, 187, 184, 180, 194, C7G, 79, 80, 88. C 79. 101, 104. Apollodorus, p. 19. Apollonius, p. 2, 4, 20. D Z 11, 145. Arcesilas, Demetrius, p. 27. Archedemus, C 7. Diodorus, p. 40, C 8. Z 81. Archelaus, Diogenes, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, Z 9. 42, 51, C 27. Aristarchus, p. 108, 171, 185, p. 225, C 113. Z 197. Aristippus, of Apollonia, Z 42, 81. Z 191, C 92. Aristo, p. 36, 5, 131, of Babylon, Z 100, 108, C 72. Aristotle, p. 24, 25, Z 12, 26, 35, Dionysius (o fj.era.6^fj.fvos), p. 234, 49, 50, 53, p. 110, Z65, 67, 68, 328. 69, 81, 99, 104, 112, 116, 117, 128, 134, 135, 136, 163, 167, 168, E 195, C 1, 37, 52, 53. 169, Empedocles, p. 114, Z73, 81, 110. Aristoxenus, C 42. Empedus, p. 233. Epicurus and Epicureans, Z 8, 9, 21, 50, 55, 58, 69, 72, 73, 74, Bion , p. 230. 85, 102, 112, 107, C 10, 89, 90. Z 54. Boetlms, H C Heraclitus, p. 2123, 50, Z 52, 54, Z 05, 77, 83, 85, 87, Caphesias, p. 231. p. 114, 04, 48 Carneades, Z 11. C 1, 3, 21, 28, 29, 33, (10, 24, Cbremonides, p. 6, 232. 30). H. P. 22 3.38 IXDEX NOMINUM.

Herillus, p. 52, Z 17. Polemo, p. 3, 25. Z 77. Herpdicus, Posidonius, p. 49, Z 24, 49, 52, 66, Hesiod, p. 31, 32, Z 29, (Tlieoy. 76, 80, 131, 143, 198, C 35, 84. Z 118, 119) 113, (J/ira.9. 126 Ptolemy, Philadelphia, 5, 228. Z p. 6, 128) 193, (Cty. 291), Z l96. Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Z 50, Z C 42. Hippocrates, 106, 55, 65, 70, 73, 81, C 26, 27, 29, Homer, p. 31, 43, 51, Z 174, 195, 37, 68. 198. S

I Seneca, Z 162. Indians, Z 187. Socrates, p. 45, 53, Z 59, 123, 134, 158, 159, 162, 194, p. 227, 230, If C 76, 77, 79. Sophocles (frag. 711), Z 197. Marcus Aurelius, Z 52, 162, C 44. Stilpo, p. 3, 28. Z 5. Megarians, Strato, Z 64, C 43. N Neanthes, 51. p. Thales, Z 73.

Theophrastus, p. 110 f., 233.

Panaetius, Z 54. Z 81. Parmenides, 64, Virgil, Z 97. Peripatetics, p. 110 f., Z 159, 169. Persaeus, p. 31, 53. Phocylides, Z 29. Xenocrates, 3, Z C 37. Plato, p. 25, 26, 30, Z 1, 16, 21, 23, p. 1, 128, 117. 34, 35, 62, 65, 91, 99, 103, 110, Xenophanes,Z56 (33), 81, 113, 112, 134, 135, 136, 142, 149, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 177, 197, C 58. 37, 57, Zeno, p. 135, 46, C 13, 18, 24, 76. Cratylus, p. 44. of Tarsus, Z 57, 87. III. INDEX VERBORUM.

dyadd, p. 14, 15, Z 127, 128, C 75. a7ro/rpi/e&lt;70ai, Z 56 (45). a7fX?7 ffiWo/ttoy, Z 162. ATroXXwj , C 58. dyvoia, Z 18. dTrouivrjfj.ovev^.aTa Kpar^ros, p. 31, d5e?s, Z 109. Z 199. doidcjiopa, p. 14, 15, 17, 46, Z 127, awove^T^ois, Z 134.

v. . 128, 129, 145, 154, 161, 171, 172, diroirpor]y/j.ei&gt;ov, irpotjyfj.evoi 17*. aTropuv (Trept), p. 49. Z Z. 198. a^r-Tjros, 148, 157_. "Apa^es, dddvaros (cofs), Z 95. dpyixepavve, G 48 (32). ;itfcu ,acn-os, Z 109. dpeTr,, Z 125, 128, 134, 135, C 78, TO rov Z 65. 83. aidepos {&lt;j\a- i 79, 80, alBrip, Z 41, C 15. dperwi (irepi), p. 52. ai)ta, Z 87, 88. XpiffTa.px.ov (Trpos), p. 51. 51. Z 144. cu&lt;rtf?}&lt;7ews (?repi), p. 50, dppwor^/uaTa, aurfVis, Z 8. 20, 121. dpxcu, Z 35.

O.ITIOV, Z 24. dpxa-LOTfpoi, p. 40, Z 10. d/coXao-ia, Z 138. cipa^s (irepl), p. 47, 52. ciXXa.777, Z 168. ciae/ietaj ypafir], C 27. f r \\ ^7 "O X\ / -)/i aAXoiaxTts, Z oJ. aaoAocKOS, /; oU. d XXajs, C 45. dtrr^pes, C 33, 34. 45. Z 74. aXcr/a j aJa, C 44, dffTpa.Trr), 133. 47. d/ij.dpTrjfj.a, p. 15, Z 132, aro/xwc (Trept), p. 45. d/xerdTTTwroi , Z 135. drpaTros, C d^Kr,*, C 48 (10). ai-74 C 23. dV, Z 190. av0fKaffTos, C 75. s B \ / t-n ^/-^-- Zj/i CU ttO WOClJVCltf, U O.^. Ctl AT), lol. Z C 55. C 82. d^af^iwao-is, p. 23, 83, d&lt;pop/jiaL, ai 226. C 64. aXa.ujSdceti , p. A&lt;ppo5iTrj, 63, dva/j.fj.a voepbv, C 29. dyaTrfTrTauei/oi/, Z 174. /Sapor, Z 67. 52. dvdpeia, Z 134, C 76. /3a&lt;n\etas (Trept), p. Z 148 dveTrtTpeTTTe?^, Z 194. a&lt;7tXt/c6s, (10). 148 avdpuTrofiopias, Z 184, C 115. /iidfeTai, Z (12). dVcj \-draj 6065, Z 52. /3tos. Z 145. 52. d^ a, p. 14, Z 130, 131. /aoi X^s (Trepi), p. a^wMan/cos, Z 148 (16). ppovrrj, Z 74. dTrdOfia, Z 158. aTatoei Tous, C 106. yd/j.os, Z 171. aTra^a, p. 14, Z 130, 131. yd/j.ou (irepi), p. 51. Z 169. Z 77. dir&lt;!piTTo&lt;s, 7&lt;r; ed, ct(TiS Z 50. Z 28. aTrXws 7 ) 7ew^erpta, 340 INDEX VERBORUM.

n-aiSefaj 30. yiydvruv (irtpi), p. 51. (irep/), p. Z 11. Yopyiirirov (irtpi), p. 52. iva.Trofj.f/JMy/j.tvos, Z 9. {I Uvdaia, Z 166. , p. 34, yvvaiKts, Z 176. .dTuv, Z 31.

s, Z 134. 6. v, C 3. ^/ua ra ) Z 23, C Aewcis, C 11. ta, p. 10, 34, Z 21. Z 161. i, Z 148 (12). aryT7,

tlv, Z 35. , C 61.

Z e is, Z Z 56 117, 577,utoi&gt;p7&lt;5s, 48. 43, p. 110, (53), 5. ^TjubitpiTov (irp6s), p. 51. 134, 135, C 7 3. 5% S, Z 139, 158. eWC ?. C 5iapo\j, C 103. i 7pw(m, Z 52, C 24. Z 143. SiaOtfffis, Z 117, 135, C 36, 51. ^7rap&lt;ris, 139,

s, Z 51. fir((T0ai 0eois, Z 1*23. Z 134. firiyfvvritJ.aTa, p. 46. Z 139. ^j OJ , Z 174. fTTiyiyw^eva Kplfffffiv, 138, dia.K6ffnr)ffis, Z 52. eiriBvfjda, Z 142, 172. 5taXe;c7), Z 6, 32, C 1. eiriffTJM, Z 16, 17, 18, 33, 134. 50. StaXfKTi/cTjs (irepi), P- 49. eiriffrrifj.-!)? (vepl), p. SiaXfKTtKoi, p. 33, Z 5. eTrterroXai, p. 31. StdKoia, Z 100, 135. fpws, Z 113, 163, 172. Z 5tarpi/3ai, p. 30, Z 179. fpuriKT) Tt\vT), p. 30, 52, 174, 53. C 108. dLarpipuv j3 , p. Siaxwreis, Z 139. parroj (Trepi), p. 52. Z 177. i, Z 148 (14). eff^s, Z 25. fffdifiv Z 31. , dra/CTWS, dLrjKflV, C 13. Ecrria, Z 110, C 27. 24. StKafetP (Trepi TOU), p. 52. Za\aTov rov irvpbs, C diKaiov, C 77. i /3oi-Xias (irepi), p. 47, 52.

t i Z C 74. SiKaiotrw T;, Z 122, 134. 5at/aoj/t o, 124, C 42. StxaffTrjpia, Z 166. evxpaffLa, p. 23, 145. Atovi cros, C 57. efXo70v, Z Z fi Z 56 Aioffxoijpovs, 117. &gt;7rp&lt;?7reia, (63). 56a, Z 15, 143, 153. tvpri\oyos, C 62. Z C 74. 66*175 (irtpi), p. 47, 48, 50, 52, C 100, ei&gt;ia, 124, 101. ei)0wo, Z 172.

i C 85. ei)&lt;i fas 52. dvvdfj.fi* t/ X ^s, Z 93, (irfp/), p. di 8. Z 79, C 91. varov, C i&lt;f&gt; iifuv, 5i i/aTwi (jrepi)) P- 50. ov, C 51. Zefc, Z 111. OS T ^- ZTJVOH (i"fpt Js &lt;/&gt;i (TtoXo7iai /3 ), 50. , p. 45, C 76. p. s iratStla, Z 167. f^Stov, Z 71. 45 C 18. C 35. j), Z 19, 45, A, fu&gt;i&gt;i) dia.K(Kavfdvr), 3. Z 62. , C jyoi (6 &gt;c6crp.os),

s, Z 143, C 76. Z 24, 67, (K\ttyeit, Z 71, 73. , p. 13, 42, 33, 24. C 25, 28, e At7r. -pw&lt;ris, Z 52, 54, 55, C 22, 93, 101, 135, 141, 15, ?\eyx ( ffo-vrov, Z 189. 84. Aeoj, Z 144, 152. tfovr,, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 90. e\tv6fplas (irtpi), p. 52. 143, C 88, 89, 53. t\tv8tpovs, Z 149. rjSovrjt (irtpl), p. 47, 31. &lt;\^, C 29, 60. i70/ca, p. INDEX VERBORUM. o4l

Z 102. rifaKOV, Z 2, 119. KarairivfTai, Z C 7. 770os, Z 146, 147, C 36. Karriydpwa, 23, 24, 50. 77X105, C 25, 28, 29, 30, 31. Kartjyopri/MTUv (irepl), p. 5 50. p. 15, 34, Z 145. HpaK-XeiVou e^-tjyrjfffuv , p. /caro/30u&gt;^a, Z 174. HpaKXijj, C 62. KfKOfffJ.-nfj.fvof, Z 69, 70. HpTj, Z 110. Kfw, 52. Z C 48 Hpi\\ov (Trpds), p. xtpavvos, 74, (10). Z 38. H0CUOTOS, Z 111. K-rjpia, Kripfa, Z 50. tfaVaros, Z 129. /aV^cns, Z 91. Z 29. tfai Aiai-oTTows, C 9H. K\ri6fis, 1. C 53. tfeoXo-yiKoi , C K\rjffeu iepai, KOii iroibv. Z 49. tfeo/uax 11 P- 51. ws Z 115. rfeos, Z 35, 108, 109. Kotos, tfeos /caKuS? TTO^T^S, Z 47, C 48 (17). KOMTCU, Z 75. t eos C 47. KOO-/UOS, Z 57, 66, 71, 162, 193, &lt;j&gt;6apr}ff6/j.et&gt;os, C 48 tfeuw (irepf), p. 49, 51, C 47. 17, (7). C 114. depifav, p. 224. KpavT-fjpes, 5t oXou, 23, Z 51, 52, Hepu-affia, Z 84. \-pa&lt;rts p. 11, C 13. t*&lt;r, Z 39. 53, 96, C 11. Z 115. OrjptVXeioJ , Kpeios, Z 143. HvpaSfv, C 37. \-pio-eis, 136, 139, Kpo^os, Z 113. Z 116. IdTrero?, Z 115. Ki/KXw7res, 6. C 8. /Seat, Z 23, C x\&gt;pievui&gt;, /ii. oi ros 50. i 5ioj, p. 49. ptei (Kepi), p. C 33. idiuv (irepi), p. 49. Kuvofi.5r)s, 26, lOtOJS TTOtOV, Z 49. Z C 7. iepd, Z 164. \eKT6v, p. 40, 24, \e C 61. tXi j, Z 113. &lt;7xcu, C 61. I o-os, v. d/uapr^a. \effxvvopiov, tewv Z 31. I0ucpcms, C 11. Xe (irtpt). p. 27, 30, \%u, p. 27, 226. 130. Z 131. /ca&lt;?a7raf d8id&lt;popa, Z \rj7rrti, 130, Xiros, Z 169. Kcttfapos, Z 36, 174. Ka8e\Kfiv, Z 30. Xo7ia, Z 4, C 2. Z 1. Ka.09,Kov, p. 15, 34, Z 145, 161, 169, XC^KT?, 170, 171, 172, 177, 178, 192. \oyiKov, Z 2. Z 3, 37, 44, C 16. Ka6-nKovTos (irepi), p. 29, 52. X^/os, p. 22, - Z C 24. Ka0o\iKd, p. 27, Z 23. cr^p^cm/cos, 46, 27 Ka.Kd, p. 14, Z 127, 128. \6yov (-n-epi), p. - p. 50. Aca/cta, p. 46. (""fpt ToO), - Z 3. KaXXwrpov, C 88. 0-rotxf a, Z 200. KO.\UV (irfpi), p. 52. Xo70(/&gt;tXos, C 60. (fapSia, Z 141, C 87. Aoias, \-ard, Z 145. Xo^oi-, Z 73. Kara Z 130, AvKfios, 59. &lt;/&gt;iW, p. 14, 15, 169, 192, C 88. Awaos, C 59. roO f. \VTTTI, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, (7Tcpc &lt;/.. Siou), p. 29. 143, 144, C 86. Xucreis Kal 28. KO.Ta\T]TrriKri, v. (pavraffla.. tXeyxoi, P- 147. Z 139. Ka.ra.\t)VT6v , Z XiVis, Ka.Td\r,tts, p. 34, Z 10, 16, 18, 33, C 81). Mai oca, C 67. 342 INDEX VEBBORUM.

232. Moi^s, p. owia, p. 41, Z 49, 50, 51, 53, p. 110. Z 118. UOXTIKT?, p. 29, (irept), p. 29. Z 195. Mo/xy/njr, (irept), p. 29. w^yas, Z 148. ue C 80. 077, aB-n, p. 45, Z 135144, 172, 086. Z 159. fj.f6vai&gt;, iratfiDj (irepO, p. 29, 184. fj-fitixris, Z 139. 7rai5a7W7oi, Z 188.

C 80 . ueXa&gt;xMa, 7rat5e/a, I f^Aciy/cXios. Z 94. a&lt;?p77 (i/ i/x^j), 93, ira.v&lt;rt\r)i&gt;os, Z 73. u^oi/, C 24. Trapa/SdXXeti , Z 185. ue Z 145. cra, irapa5fiy(j.a, Z 26. ueradXXe&lt;T0cu, Z 153. TrapdSo^a, C 107. 23. uerapoXJi, p. irapd^fffis, Z 51. WS 11. UeTO\7)l/ (TTfpi), p. 50, C irapaivfriicri, p. 47, C 92. ufTaj/oeu Z 153. , 7rap&lt;iXo7a, C 107. 128. fj-tr^xovra, p. 46, Z trapa/j.v6r]riKri, C 93, 94. Z 52. ur|u, 51, Trapa 0i/(rtK, p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169.

fjutTlfjir), Z 14. , Z 34, 35. .aoix^et", Z 178, C 110. ^, Z 175. 51. /u #i*cd, p. , Z 65.

,U.Up/J.T!)KfS, C 45. Z 56 , 52, (43). Z 174. uupojrwXia, PL-IT artlv dKWTM^s. Z 31. -^fJMTa., C 53. laraffn, p. 15, Z 169, 170, 184. ii, C 66. Z 146. , TrtXoetS^s, C 32. Z 164. caot, w\Tjyr) TTi/pos, C 76. C 6. voTjfiaTa, ir\riKTpov, C 31. Z 168. v6fj.ifffj.a, TrXoiVor, Z 169, C 111. Z 39. v6/uos, TrceP/ua, p. 11, 40, 42, Z 41, 48, p. v6fj.ov (irepi), p. 30. 110, Z 84, 85, C 13. vonuv (iffpi), p. 52. SiarfTifOv, C 43. Z 144. poffij/xara, irvfv/j.aTiKri Suva/us, p. 110. Z 144. vocroi, Trpft yuariKos TOVOS, Z 56 (54). Z C 37. i/oOs, 43, iroirjTtKTJs dKpodfftus (irtpi), p. 31. Z 42. iroirjTov (irepi), p. 51. Trow, Z 23, 49. Z 13. ri, TTotdr?;?, Z 53, 92. Z 16. S, 15, TrotoOf, Z 34, 35. j, Z 121, 122, 126. TroXts, C 104. C 65. o\o6&lt;f&gt;poi&gt;os, TToXIrai, Z 149. oXou 28. (jre/){), p. HoXtreia, p. 20, 29, Z 23, 97, 149, 6/jLo\oyia (pvffet, Z 120, 123, C 72. 162. Z 163. 6/j.ovoia, Tro\iTfVfff6ai, Z 170. ovtlpijiv, Z 160. TToXlTlKOV, C 1. Z 104. opaerts, TToXlTlKOS, p. 52. 143. opeis, Z TroXi xpoftos, Z 95. Z 56 opt), (8). TroXiiuJvi Mos, C 48 (1). op^oj Xo-yos, pp. 810, 40, Z 3, 117, TTWOS, Z 128, 187, 201. 123, 157. iroptia, Z 175. 6p0ws \4yeiv, C 9. HoffctSuv, Z 111. Z 138. OPMO/, 123, Trpd^euv (irept), p. 52. 52. 6p/x7)j (?repi), p. 29, irpofi\rifw.Tui&gt; Ofj.T)piKuv, p. 31. 52. opuw (Trep/), p. irporiyntvov, p. 15, 34, Z 127, 128, Z ovpavos, 66. 131, 145, 169. IXDEX VERBORUM. 343

irpor)yov[j.fi&gt;os, p. 15, Z 128, 131, avvoSos, Z 73.

1&lt;J9, 170. avffroXri, Z 139, 143. 34. irpoKoirri, p. &lt;r0cupa, Z 67. Z 160. TTpOKOTTTOVTeS, ff&lt;pd\\&lt;T6a.L, Z 153. irp6\T)\l/ts, p. 10, 34, 40, Z 21. Z 134. &lt;TX&lt;?&lt;, irpovoia, Z 36, 45 A, C 18, 19, 44. o-tD^a, Z 24, 34, 36, 91. Z 22. a-poTTfTfia, ffwppoviffTrjpes, C 114. Z Trpoo-Scm a, 143. (rufipoavvr), Z 134, 138, C 76. TTpoariyopia, Z 23. irpoffieo-dat., Z 160. TaTreti/axms, Z 139. irpoa-Ka\ei&lt;T0at, C 27. reiveffdai, Z 67.

". Z Trpos xap 189. reXaoj Xiyyos, Z 82. irpoffwrov, Z 25. reXerds, C 53. TrporpfTTTLKos, p. 52. reXoj, p. 45, Z 120, 124, C 74. Kara Z 126. TrpdJra (puffiv, 122, reXoi S (irfpi), p. 52. TTToia, Z 137. rex"?, P- 27, Z 5, 12, 13, 118, C 5. TTTweris, Z 139. 23, T^X^S ("^pO. P- 50. UvffayopiKd, p. 29. rex"^?, ^ 48. Tri p rexviKov, p. 23, Z 41, 42, 46, r^eo-^at (6co,ua), Z 116. 68, C 30. 71, 13, 15, 23, 26, rt^s (Trept), P- 47, 52. rrpoeiS???, C 32. Ti^d, Z 23. Tirai as, Z 115. Z 56 Ijta, 25, (56), C 21. ro^os, p. 8, 22, 23, 42, 45, 51, Z 33, 35, p. 110, Z 91, 103, C 24, 42, 76. T07TOJ, Z 69. Z C 32. fff\r,i&gt;T], 73, rpipwv, Z 194. wc (n/Mfi (Trepi), p. 29. rpiMfpi??, Z 1. OOTTO S, p. 45, C 74. Tpiroyevfia, Z 1. o-oXoua Z 31. feij , rpoTrwv p. 50. Z (Trept), ao^uTjUara, 6. riryxdj/oj/ra, Z 23. ffrxpov roG TOJ cr. (jrept &lt;roipt(7Tei etf), ryTrwcrtj, p. 34, Z 7. p. 53. Z o-7Tf&gt;a, 106, 107, C 24. I/XT;, Z 35, 49, 50, 51. o-Troi Scuoy, Z 148159. vp.eva.iov (irepi), p. 51 Z 4. crrcm/cd, i-Tra/coiW, Z 29. (irfpi), C 113. Z 115. ar^X7;y Tweptwi , tm Z 166. xoi, virWeffi s, Z 25. o-rofi? 53. (Trept), p. uTrofleri/rds T67ros, p. 47, C 92. oroixf a, Z 3, 35. i-TrcvxepeT^oiJ, Z 134. ffT-parT^ytKos, Z 148. vTroTriirTeiv, Z 23. Z 32. ffrpoyyvXos, L-Troo-rdtf/xij, Z 114. (TvyKa.Ta.ee vis, p. 34, Z 15, lit, 33, iV C 44. 123, 139, 158. i Z 51. &lt;n-7x &lt;, (paivofj.ei a ffufrw, C 27. Z 106. ffv\\r)&lt;j&gt;8eis, ^a/c^, Z 156. Z 24. avupfpyKos, (pavraaia, p. 24, 38, Z 7, 8, 33, 123, avp.ira.8eLa. p,epuv, Z 58. 158, C 3. o-v^iroffiov 53. - (irepi), p. 47, /caToX^TrriK??, p. 8, 9, 24, Z avp.&lt;ptpov, p. 45, C 77. 10, 11. Z 40. Z 23. ffwairTiKj,, &lt;pdi&gt;Ta.(r/j.a, cri j/eKTiKTy, Z 40. (pavraffriKov , Z 160. ffvveffruTuv, Z 67. Z 154. &lt;/&gt;auXos, 148, Z 96. 0-iWx"&gt; ^epaetfiovn, C 56. ffWLVTOpelv, C 11. &lt;t&gt;6ovepias (irfpi), p. 47, 52. . {44 INDEX VKRHOKUM.

wi rou Koa/Aov, L 50. %O.\KOV (ft pi), p. 53, C 112. 113. i, /. 103. X&n, Z 112,

53. T &lt;* 47, C 9799. /x;, p. 47, X&lt;*/* (&lt;** ) P- 52,

" &lt; /ri C 4. t, X 200. x fy 7 tfap/or, Z 194. t/X 149. X/*"&gt; P- 81,

^ ir&lt; &gt;t 53. f, C 23. XP*"*" / )i ! 143. c ;w - i, |). 40, X 128, 142, x/"*/"" "^ . 1 X 110. (" 50- (^v/c^Xtot), 71, x/*&gt;"" P ). P- 2 70. t, p. 35, C 21. X/"". X 78. t, p. 15, 10, 45, X 134, 150. x/ WMOTa, /. 155. X^P*! Z 69. (, z 39, p. 110. 49. divatwi (irt.pl), p. 28. ^aXoi, C Z C 36- QvatKfo, X 2. t/ i/Xi?, 43, 56(60), 8396, ^Jrn, p. 14, X 43, 45, 46, C 51, r. 45. 6fM\oyla and /rard. roC Kofffwv, C 14, 21. (KOtPT^, C 73. 0iW, X 106. wjav, Z 56(99). Z C 77. &lt;t,uvouv, X 98. u)^Xi/)t, 190, 75,

77, X 99, 100, p. 220.


Cambria (je

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, &c. The Cambridge Paragraph of the Authorized English Version, with the Text revised by a Collation of its F.arly and other Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform, the Mar ginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduction, by .r. II. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., LL.D. Crown 4 . ,., cloth gilt, 2;;. THE STUDENT S EDITION of the above, on ,^W writing paper, with one column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes. Two Voli. IT. Crown 4*.o., cloth, gilt, 3 W. The Lectionary Bible, with , divided into Sections adapted to the Calendar and Tab!es of I,essons of 1871. Cr. 8vo. y. f&gt;d. The in Greek according to the Septuagir.it. Jvdited by the Rev. Professor H. Ii. SWKTE, D.L&gt;. Vol. I. Genefcis IV Kin?-.. I Tobit. Cro-.vn 8vo. ;;. oV. Vol.11. Chronicles \_:, early ready. The Book of Psalms in Greek according to the Septuagint. Being fcvo. 2:. CV. a por.ior. of Vol. II. of above. Crown

The Book of Ecclesiastes. Large Pap-ir Edition. By the \ ery V. Rev. E. H. PLVMKrfcE, Dean of e".s. Derr.y &gt;vo. 7:. ^.

Breviarium ad usuin insignis Ecclesiae Sarum. J;/.ta Kd!t;onern maximam pro CLAVDIO CHEVA;.I.O.V e*. FiA. . cr- .o P.KO. AV;/I A.JJ.

;err.:.a : MDXXXI. in Alma Pariiior-m Acs, irr.p. tviarci ^./J : -. zr, t .tidio FKANCISCI PKOCTEK, A.M., et CHKISTOPHOKI V/ofciySv/oi-. /H, A.M. FASCICVLVS I. In c-o cor.tir.er.-.-r KA:.LNJ&gt;Air.:vif, e*. Oi-:xj TEK

. sive Pho?Ki"M i/E TEMKJJ-.E TO7IVS A. -I, -;r.a cum or ;;r..&:; &gt;.u

usitato vocabulo dicitur PICA i. VE D:i..c";oi.:vw .SA^EJT.X/ ; VJ/.

8vo. i *. . FASCICULUS II. In cao con:;E.irir PSALTEZJVM, cum orcJr_ar: o Off.cii Hora.; Ca ^^i et to:iii5 hebcomada.e jua:a ^a.;, p. OT-rio Cor/.j^.e .OT;. , LITAMA, COMMUNE SANCTORUM, Ot^iNAiivn MiSsAJE CUM CAJVOJVE ET xi:i Miss:;, ice. ccc. De=:v v.. 12.-.

FASCICULUS III. In quo cor.:_ evir PiOJ-i- UM .SA-VC . OxUM quv: e*. &gt;ar.:-.:re cirinr. :ir_2 cu=: A^"t."V_ari ,. I^e.v.v *vo. i-.:. FASCICCLI I. II. III. complete /2. ::.

Breviarium Romanum a F?.AN ,:- ,o CA?.L-:VAL: . io edffurn Qv/o:&gt;"&gt;.

Tor-iAN. -L V~IC&gt;;HAK Lz&gt; ;-. L&gt;fiLv -/-.. n.-.

The Pointed Prayer Book, being the B-&gt;jk of Cornruon Prayer .i vr;:;: -_Le Psal:er or Ps.=lns of I/avii, poiz.*,fcd *_i.7 a^t t.o :&gt;t t .r.^ &gt;r s.i:i iz: Chu.ries. Roval 74Jto. :. The same in square 32i^o. clci, 6i. The Cambridge P=aiter. for the use of Choirs ar.d Organists. S;x;-

L:nd:n : Carr^r-^f rf ante-uze, A .t Jifarii La.ru use of Choirs the The Paragraph Psalter, arranged for the by Right Rev. B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., Lord Bp. of Durham. Fcp. 4to. 5*. 6d. The same in royal 32mo. Cloth, is. Leather, is. Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly known as the Psalms of , by H.E.RvLE, M.A. and M.R. JAMES, M.A. Demy 8vo. 15*. The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Sub F. H. A. SCRIVENER, sequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. By M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. yj. 6d. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Small Crown 8vo. 6*. The Parallel New Testament Greek and English. The New Testament, being the Authorised Version set forth in 1611 Arranged in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version of 1881, and with the original Greek, as edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown is the the Universities 8vo. iis. 6d. ( The Revised Version joint oj

of Cambridge and Oxford. ) Greek and English Testament, in parallel columns on the same with the page. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. New Edition, marginal revised 6d. references as arranged and by DR SCRIVENER. 7.?. Greek and English Testament. THE STUDENT S EDITION of the above on large -writing paper. 410. us.

Greek Testament, ex editione Stephani tertia, 1550. Sm. 8vo. 35. 6d. The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions. By Rev. Prof. SKEA.T, Litt.D. One Volume. Demy Quarto. 30*. Each Gospel separately. IO.T. The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes, and facsimile of the MS., by Prof. BENSLT, M.A. Demy 4(0. IO.T. The Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. XI. 28 XIII. 25. Now edited for the first time with Introduction and Notes on this version of the Epistle. By ROBERT L. BENSLY. Demy 8vo. $s. S. Ceaddae Latinus. Evangelia SSS. Matthaei, Marci, Lucae ad cap. III. 9 complectens, circa septimum vel octavum saeculum Lichfieldiensi servatus. codice ver- scriptvs, in Ecclesia Cathedrali Cum sionis Vulgatae Amiatino contulit, prolegomena conscripsit, F. H. A. SCRIVENER, A.M., LL.D. Imp. 410. i. is.

The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament. By

IDJ. 6&lt;/. J. R. HARRIS, M.A. With 3 plates. Demy 410. Notitia Codicis Quattuor Evangeliorum Graeci membranacei viris doctis hucusque incogniti quern in museo suo asservat Eduardus Reuss Argentoratensis. is.

London : Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. THEOLOGY (ANCIENT). Theodore of s Mopsuestia Commentary on the Minor of au1 e Latin Version with the Greek - edited from the ?;&lt; ,T Fragments, 5b. with Notes and an Introduction, by H. B. SWETE, D.D. Vol. I. the containing Introduction, and the Commentary upon Colos- sians. Demy Octavo, its. Volume the II., containing Commentary on i Thessalonians Philemon, Appendices and Indices. 12s. from the Chagigah Babylonian Talmud. A Translation of the Treatise with Notes, etc. A. W. by STRKANE, M.A. Demy Svo. ios. The Greek Liturgies. Chiefly from original Authorities. By C A. SWAINSON, D.D., late Master of Christ s College. Cr. 4 to. i 5 s. of the Sayings Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirqe Aboth and R. Meir in Pereq Hebrew and English, with Critical Notes. By C. Master of St TAYLOR, D.D., John s College, ios. Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis libros quinque adversus Hsereses, edidit W. WIGAN HARVEY, S.T.B. Collegii Regalis olim Socius. 2 Vols. Demy Octavo. i8.r. The Palestinian Mishna. BY W. H. LOWE, M.A. Royal Svo. 215. M. Minucii Felicis Octavius. The text newly revised from the original MS. with an English Commentary, Analysis, Introduction, and Indices. H. A. Copious By HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. Svo. fs. 6d. Theophili Episcopi Antiochensis Libri Tres ad Autolycum. Edidit Prolegomenis Versione Notulis Indicibus instruxit GULIELMUS GILSON HUMPHRY, S.T.B. Post Octavo. $s. Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthsei Commentarius, Edited W. G. by HUMPHRY, B.D. Demy Octavo. 7*. 6d. Tertullianus de Corona Militis, de Spectaculis, de Idololatria with and G. Analysis English Notes, by CURREY, D.D. Crown Svo. $s. Fragments of Philo and . Newly edited by J. RENDEL M.A. With two HARRIS, Facsimiles. Demy 410. \-is.6d. The of Teaching the Apostles. Newly edited, with Facsimile Text and R. Commentary, by J. HARRIS, M.A. Demy 4 to. iis. The Rest of the Words of : Baruch A Christian Apocalypse of the A.D. The Text year 136 revised with an Introduction by T. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. Royal 8vo. w. The Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas; the ori ginal Greek Text now first edited from a MS. in the Library of the Convent of the at Holy Sepulchre Jerusalem, by J. RENDEL HARRIS and SETH K. GIFFORD. Royal 8vo. $s. Biblical from Mount Fragments Sinai, edited by J. RENDEL M.A. HARRIS, Demy 410. io.r. 6&lt;/. The Diatessaron of Tatian. By J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. Royal 8vo. zs.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. PUBLICATIONS OF

THEOLOGY (ENGLISH). MSS. A Works of Isaac Barrow, compared with the original 8vo. new Edition, by A. NAPIER, M.A. 9 Vols. Demy ^3. 3*- Treatise of the s Supremacy, and a Discourse concerning

8vo. 6&lt;/. the Unity of the , by I. BARROW. Demy 7*. Pearson s Exposition of the Creed, edited by TEMPLE CHEVAL- D.D. 8vo. m. LIER, B.D. 3rd Edition revised by R. SINKER, Demy written the An Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, by Right \V. H. Rev. Father in God, JOHN PEARSON, D.D. Compiled by MILL, D.D. Demy Octavo. 5.1. E. D.D. Wheatly on the Common Prayer, edited by G. CORRIE, 6d. late Master of Jesus College. Demy Octavo, is. and the from The Homilies, with Various Readings, Quotations Edited the Fathers given at length in the Original . by 8vo. 6d. G. E. CORRIE, D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy jj. Now First Two Forms of Prayer of the time oi Queen Elizabeth. Reprinted. Demy Octavo. 6d. Fellow of Col Select Discourses, by JOHN SMITH, late Queens, Edited H. G. WILLIAMS, B.D. late Professor of lege, Cambridge. by Arabic. Royal Octavo. 7^. 6d. decem Oxonii in Schola De Obligatione Conscientiae Prselectiones SS. ibidem Theologica habitse a ROBERTO SANDERSON, Theologian an Transla Professore Regio. With English Notes, including abridged 8vo. 6d. tion, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 7*. and of Philo Csesar Morgan s Investigation of the Trinity of Plato, revised H. A. LL.D. Cr. 8vo. Judseus. and Ed., by HOLDEN, 4*. Tracts on Archbishop Usher s Answer to a Jesuit, with other M.A. Svo. 6J. Popery. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, Demy "js. Test Wilson s Illustration of the Method of explaining the New and Christians Christ. ament, by the early opinions of Jews concerning Edited by T. TURTON, D.D. Demy Svo. 5*. of Lectures on Divinity delivered in the University Cambridge. late Lord By JOHN HEY, D.D. Third Edition, by T. TURTON, D.D. Bishop of Ely. 2 vols. Demy Octavo. 15*. S. Austin and his in the History of Christian Thought. place W. D.D. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885. By CUNNINGHAM, Demy Svo. Buckram, \is. 6d. Christ the Life of Men. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1888. By Rev. II. M. STEPHENSON, M.A. Crown Svo. is. 6d. The Gospel History of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Language of the Revised Version, arranged in a Connected Narrative, especially M.A. for the use of Teachers and Preachers. By Rev. C. C. JAMES, Crown Svo. y. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 5

GREEK AND LATIN , &c. (See also pp. 16, 17.) Critical Sophocles : the Plays and Fragments. With Notes, Com mentary, ami Translation in English Prose, by R. C. JEBB, Litt. D., LL.D., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. Parti. Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy Svo. Second Edit, iis.bd. Part II. Oedipus Coloneus. Demy Svo. Second Edit, \2s.6d. Part III. Antigone. Demy Svo. Second Edit, \is.6d. Part IV. . Demy Svo. 1 is. 6d. Select Private Orations of Demosthenes with Introductions and English Notes, by F. A. PALEY, M.A., & J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Part I. Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum, Boeotum de No T mine, de Dote, Dionysodorum. Cr. Svo. A ew Edition. 6s. Part II. Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum I. II.; Nicostratum, Cono- r nem, Calliclem. Crown Svo. A ew Edition, js. Gd.

Demosthenes, Speech of, against the Law of Leptines. With Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Demy Svo. ys. Demosthenes against Androtion and against Timocrates, with Introductions and English Commentary by WILLIAM WAYTE, M.A. Crown Svo. js. 6d. Euripides. Bacchae, with Introduction, Critical Notes, and Archae ological Illustrations, by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. New Edition, with additional Illustrations. Crown Svo. iis. 6d. Euripides. Ion. The Greek Text with a Translation into English Verse, Introduction and Notes by A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. Demy Svo. js. 6d. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic In scriptions and the . By E. S. ROBERTS, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. Demy Svo. i8s. Aeschyli Fabulae IKETIAES XOH$OPOI in libro Mediceo men- dose scriptae ex vv. dd. coniecturis emendatius editae cum Scholiis Graecis et brevi adnotatione critica, curante F. A. PALEY, M.A., LL.D. Demy

Svo. -js. 6d. The of Aeschylus. With a translation in English Rhythm, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. New Edition, Re- vised. By the late B. H. KENNEDY, D.D. Crown Svo. 6s. The Thesetetus of Plato, with a Translation and Notes by the same Editor. Crown Svo. 7^. 6d. P. Vergili Maronis , cum Prolegomenis et Commentario Critico pro Syndicis Preli Academici edidit , S.T.P. Extra fcp. Svo. 35. 6d. on the Art of Pheidias. By C. WALDSTEIN, Litt.D., Phil.D. Royal Svo. With Illustrations. Buckram, 30^. M. Tulli Ciceronis ad M. Brutum Orator. A Revised Text. Edited with Introductory Essays and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Demy Svo. i6s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. PUBLICATIONS OF

M. Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis Reo] Oratio ad Quirites. With Notes, Introduction and Appendices. By W. E. HEIT-

M.A. 8vo. 6&lt;J. LANU, Demy "js. M. T. Ciceronis Libri Tres, with Introduction and &lt;SEPH B. M.A. 8vo. Vol. I. los. dd. Commentary by J&lt; MAYOR, Demy Vol. II. n s. 6d. Vol. III. los.

M. T. Ciceronis de Offlciis Libri Tres with Marginal Analysis, an English Commentary, and Indices. New Edition, revised, by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D., Crown 8vo. QJ. M. T. Ciceronis Libri Tertius, with Introduction, Analysis and Commentary by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. is. M. T. Ciceronis de Finibus Bonorum libri Quinque. The Text revised and explained by J. S. REID, Litt.D. [In the Press. Vol. III., containing the Translation. Demy 8vo. 8j.

Plato s Phsedo, literally translated, by the late E. M. COPE, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy Octavo. t,s. Aristotle. The Rhetoric. With a Commentary by the late E. M. COPE, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, revised and edited by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 21*. Aristotle. IIEPI ^YXH2. Aristotle s Psychology, in Greek and English, with Introduction and Notes, by E.WALLACE, M.A. DemySvo. i8j. IIEPI AIKAIO2YNH2. The Fifth Book of the of Aristotle. Edited by H. JACKSON, Litt.D. Demy 8vo. 6s. Pronunciation of Ancient Greek translated from the Third German edition of Dr BLASS by W. J. PURTON, B.A. Demy 8vo. 6.r. . Olympian and Pythian Odes. With Notes Explanatory and Critical, Introductions and Introductory Essays. Edited by C. A. M. FENNELL, Litt. D. Crown 8vo. 9*.

The Isthmian and Nemean Odes by the same Editor, gs. The Types of Greek Coins. By PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., F.S.A. With 16 plates. Impl. 4to. Cloth ji. us. 6d. Roxburgh (Morocco back) 1. -2S.

SANSKRIT, ARABIC AND SYRIAC. Lectures on the Comparative of the Semitic Languages from the Papers of the late WILLIAM WRIGHT, LL.D. DemySvo. 14*. The Divyavadana, a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends, now first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit MSS. in Cambridge and Paris. By E. B. COWELL, M.A. and R. A. NEIL, M.A. Demy 8vo. i8j. Nalopakhyanam, or, The Tale of Nala; containing the Sanskrit Text in Roman Characters, with Vocabulary. By the late Rev. T. JARRETT, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. Notes on the Tale of Nala, for the use of Classical Students, by J. PEILE, Litt.D., Master of Christ s College. DemySvo. iis.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 7

The History of , being the Syriac version of the Pseudo-. Edited from Five , with an English Translation and Notes, by E. A. BUDGE, M.A. Demy 8vo. 25^. The Poems of Beha ed dm Zoheir of Egypt. With a Metrical Translation, Notes and Introduction, by the late E. H. PALMER, M.A. 2 vols. Crown Quarto. Vol. I. The ARABIC TEXT. Paper covers. los. 6&lt;/. Vol.11. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Paper covers. :os. 6rf. The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite edited in Syriac, with an English translation and notes, by W. WRIGHT, LL.D. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. Kalilah and Dimnah, or, the Fables of Bidpai; with an English Translation of the later Syriac version, with Notes, by the late I. G. N. KEITH-FALCONER, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7^. 6d. Makala-i-Shakhsi Sayyah ki dar Kaziyya-i-Bab Navishta-Ast (a Traveller s Narrative written to illustrate the Episode of the Bab). Per sian text, edited, translated and annotated, in two volumes, by E. G. BROWNE, M.A., M.B. [Nearly ready.

MATHEMATICS, PHYSICAL SCIENCE, &c. Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir G. G. STOKES, Sc.D., LL.D. Reprinted from the Original Journals and Transactions, with additional Notes by the Author. Vol.1. DemySvo. 15^. Vol. II. 155. [Vol. III. In the Press. Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir W. THOMSON, LL.D., F.R.S. Collected from different Scientific Periodicals from May, 1841, Vol. III. i8.r. to the present time. Vol.1. DemySvo. iSs. Vol.11. 15.?. The Collected Mathematical Papers of ARTHUR CAYLEY, Sc.D., F.R.S. Demy 410. 10 vols. Vols. I., II. and III. 1 5 s. each. [Vol. IV. In the Press. A History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge. By W. W. ROUSE BALL, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. A History of the Theory of Elasticity and of the Strength of Materials, from Galilei to the present time. Vol. I. GALILEI TO SAINT- VENANT, 1639-1850. By the late I. TODHUNTER, Sc.D., edited and completed by Prof. , M.A. Demy 8vo. 2^ j. Vol. II. By the same Editor. [In Ike Press. The Elastical Researches of Barre de Saint-Venant (extract from Vol. II. of TODHUNTER S History of the Theory of Elasticity), edited by 8vo. Professor KARL PEARSON, M.A. Demy 9.?. Theory of Differential . Part I. Exact Equations and Pfaff s Problem. By A. R. FORSYTII, Sc.D., F.R.S. Demy 8vo. iis. A Treatise on the General Principles of , by M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A. Second Edition. DemySvo. i$s. Elementary Chemistry. By M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A., and CHARLES SLATER, M.A., M.B. Crown 8vo. 4^. 6d. Practical Chemistry. A Course of Laboratory Work. By M. M. Cr. PATTISON MUIR, M.A., and D. J. CARNEGIE, M.A. 8vo. 3J-. PUBLICATIONS OF

A Treatise on Geometrical . By R. S. HEATH, M.A Demy 8vo. us. 6d. An Elementary Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R. S. HEATH M.A. Crown 8vo. $s. A Treatise on S. L. M.A. Cr. Svo. 6d Dynamics. By LONEY, "js. A Treatise on Analytical Statics. By E. J. ROUTH, Sc.D., F.R.S [Nearly ready A Treatise on Plane Trigonometry. By E. W. HOBSON, M.A Demy Svo. [Nearly ready Lectures on the of Plants, by S. H. VINES, Sc.D. Professor of Botany in the . Demy Svo. iis. A Short of Greek History Mathematics. By J. Gow, Litt. D. Fellow of Trinity College. Demy Svo. ios.6d. Notes on Qualitative Analysis. Concise and Explanatory. B^ H. H. J. FENTON, M.A., F.C.S. New Edit. Crown 4to. 6s. of Diophantos Alexandria; a Study in the History of Greel T. L. . By HEATH, M.A. Demy Svo. ;j. 6&lt;/. A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Paper: written or to by belonging SIR . Demy Svo. 55. A Treatise on . By Prof. Sir W. THOMSON and P. LL.D., G. TAIT, M.A. Part I. Demy Svo. i6s. Part II. iSj Elements of Natural Philosophy. By Professors Sir W. THOMSON and P. G. TAIT. Second Edition. Demy Svo. 9.1. An Elementary Treatise on Quaternions. By P. G. TAIT, M.A Second Edition. Demy Svo. 14 s. A Treatise on the m Theory of Determinants and their Application: Analysis and Geometry. By R. F. SCOTT, M.A. Demy Svo. iis. A Counterpoint. practical course of study. By the late Pro! Sir G. A. Mus. MACFARREN, D. sth Edition, revised. Cr. 4to. 7*. 6&lt;, The Analytical Theory of Heat. By JOSEPH FOURIER. Translate! with Notes, by A. FREEMAN, M.A. Demy Svo. I2J. The Scientific Papers of the late Prof. J. Clerk Maxwell. Editec W. D. 2 vols. by NIVEN, M.A. Royal 4 to. ,3. 3^. (net.) The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish F.R.S. Written between 1771 and 1781. Edited by J. CLERK MAX WELL, F.R.S. Demy Svo. i8s. Practical Work at the Cavendish Laboratory. Heat. Edited fr W. N. SHAW, M.A. Demy Svo. y. Hydrodynamics, a Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Fluk Motion, by LAMB, M.A. Demy Svo. iis. The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow, D.D. Edited b W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy Octavo. 71. 6d. Illustrations of Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate and Inverte brate. Second Edition. Demy Svo. is. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 9

A Catalogue of Australian Fossils. By R. ETHERIDGE, Jun., F.G.S. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. The Fossils and Palaeontplogical Affinities of the Neocomian Deposits of and the Upware Brickhill, being Seclgwick Prize Essay for 1879. By W. KEEPING, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. The Bala Volcanic Series of Caernarvonshire and Associated Rocks. being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1888, by A. MARKER, F.R.S. - M.A., 8vo. s. 6d. Demy t A Catalogue of Books and Papers on Protozoa, Coelenterates. Worms, etc. published during the years 1861-1883, by D ARCY W. THOMPSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. us. 6d. A Revised Account of the Experiments made with the Bashforth to find the resistance of Chronograph, the air to the motion of projectiles. By FRANCIS BASHFORTH, B.D. Demy 8vo. 12.?. An to attempt test the Theories of Capillary Action, by F. BASHFORTH, B.D., and J. C. ADAMS, M.A. Demy 4 to. i. is. A Catalogue of the Collection of Cambrian and Silurian Fossils contained in the Geological Museum of the University of Cambridge, by J. W. SALTER, F.G.S. Royal Quarto. 7-r. 6d. Catalogue of Osteological Specimens contained in the Anatomical the Museum of University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 2.r. 6d. Astronomical Observations made at the Observatory of Cambridge from 1846 to 1860, by the late Rev. J. CHALLIS, M.A. Astronomical Observations from 1861 to 1865. Vol. XXL Royal 4to., J5-S-. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. xxn. its.

LAW. Elements of the Law of Torts. A Text-book for Students. By MELVILLE M. BIGKLOW, Ph.D. Crown 8vo. ios. 6d. A Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contract. By GERARD BROWN FINCH, M.A. Royal 8vo. 28.?. Bracton s Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the King s Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, annotated by a Lawyer of that time, seemingly by Henry of Bratton. Edited by F. W. MAITLAND. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. $. &. (net.) Tables shewing the Differences between English and Indian Law. By Sir ROLAND KNYVET WILSON, Bart., M.A., LL.M. Demy 410. is. The Influence of the on the Law of . Being the Yorke Prize Essay for the year 1884. By T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. in Fetters. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1885. By E. T. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7*. 6d. Commons and Common Fields, or the History and Policy of the Laws of Commons and Enclosures in England. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1886. By T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6d. History of the Law of Tithes in England. Being the Yorke Prize for W. Essay 1887. By EASTERBY, B.A., LL.B. Demy 8vo. 75. 6d.

London : Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. PUBLICATIONS OF

History of Land Tenure in Ireland. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1888. By W. E. MONTGOMERY, M.A., LL.M. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6J History of Equity as administered in the Court of Chancery. Being the Yorke Prize for 1880. U. Essay By M KENZIE K.ERLY, M.A., St John s College. Demy 8vo. 1 2 s. 6a. An Introduction to the Study of Justinian s Digest. By HENR\ 8vo. JOHN ROBY. Demy ()s. Justinian s Digest. Lib. VII., Tit. I. De Usufructu, with a Legal and H. ROBY. Philological Commentary by J. Demy 8vo. gs. The Two Parts complete in One Volume. Demy 8vo. i8j. A Selection of the State Trials. By J. W. WILLIS-BUND, M.A., LL.B. I. Crown 8vo. Vols. and II. In 3 parts. 30s. The of translated Institutes Justinian, with Notes by J. T. ABDY, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. Cr. 8vo. i6j. Practical . A comment on AUSTIN. By E. C. Professor of Civil CLARK, LL.D., Regius Law. Crown 8vo. 9*. An of Criminal the Analysis Liability. By same. Cr. 8vo. 75. 6d. The Fragments of the Perpetual Edict of Salvius Julianas, Ar ranged, and Annotated by the late BRYAN WALKER, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 6s. The Commentaries of and Rules of Ulpian. Translated and Annotated, by J. T. ABDY, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. New Edition by Bryan Walker. Crown 8vo. i6j. Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, with the Notes of Barbeyrac and others; an abridged Translation of the Text, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 1 2 s. The translation separate, 6s. Selected Titles from the Digest, by BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. Parti. Mandati vel Contra. Digest xvu. I. Cr. 8vo. 5^. Part II. De Adquirendo rerum dominio, and De Adquirenda vel amittenda Possessione, Digest XLI. i and i. Crown 8vo. 6s. Part III. De Condictionibus, Digest xn. i and 4 7 and Digest xni. 13. Crown 8vo. 6j.


The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, LL.D., F.R.S. (Dedicated, by special permission, to Her Majesty the Queen.) By JOHN WILLIS CLARK, M.A., F.S.A., and THOMAS M C KENNY HUGHES, M.A. i vols. Demy 8vo. 36*. The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and . By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D. Demy 8vo. i6s. The Architectural History of the University of Cambridge and of the Colleges of Cambridge and Eton, by the late Professor WILLIS, M.A., F.R.S. Edited with large Additions and a Continuation to the time present by J. W.CLARK, M.A. 4 Vols. Super Royal 8vo. 6. 6s. Also a limited Edition of the same, consisting of 1 20 numbered Copies only, large paper Quarto; the woodcuts and steel engravings mounted on paper; of which 100 copies are now offered for sale, at Twenty- five Guineas net each set.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the 8vo. us. Royal Injunctions of 1535. by J. B. MULLINGER, M.A. Demy - Part II. From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles the First. Demy 8vo. i8j. History of the College of St John the Evangelist, by THOMAS BAKER, B.D., Ejected Fellow. Edited by JOHN E. B. MAYOR, M.A., Fellow of St John s. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. i^s. Scholae Academicae : some Account of the Studies at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century. By CHRISTOPHER WORDS WORTH, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQs. 6&lt;A Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic vols. 8vo. 30^. Age, by J. R. SEELKY, M. A. and . 3 Demy The Constitution of Canada. By J. E. C. MUNRO, LL.M. Demy 8vo. IDS. Studies in the Literary Relations of England with Germany in the Sixteenth Century. By C. 11. HERFOKD, M.A. Crown 8vo. gs. Chronological Tables of Greek History. By CARL PETER. Trans lated from the German by G. CiiAWNER, M.A. Demy 410. IQS. Travels in Arabia Deserta in 1876 and 1877. By CHARLES Illustrations. 8vo. i vols. M. DOUGHTY. With Demy ^"3. 3-5-. History of Nepal, edited with an introductory sketch of the Country and People by Dr D. WRIGHT. Super-royal Svo. 105. &d. A Journey of Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal and Northern India, 1884 5. By C. BENDALL, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQS.

Political Parties in Athens during the , by L. WIIIBLEY, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Second Edi tion. Crown Svo. is. 6d. Pope Gregory the Great and his relations with Gaul, by F. W. KELLETT, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Crown Svo. is.6d. The Constitutional Experiments of the Commonwealth, being the Thirlwall Prize Essay for 1889, by E. JENKS, B.A., LL.B. Cr. Svo. is. 6d. On Election by Lot at Athens, by J. W. HEADLAM, B.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1890.) Crown 8vo. [In the J^ress. The Destruction of the Somerset Religious Houses and its Effects. By W. A. J. ARCHHOLD, B.A., LL.B. (Prince Consort Dissertation, the 1890.) Crown 8vo. [In Press. MISCELLANEOUS. The Engraved Gems of Classical Times with a Catalogue of the Gems in the Fit/.william Museum by J. II. MIDDLETON, M.A. Royal Svo. us. 6d. . The Rede Lecture, delivered in the Senate-House, Cam bridge, June it, 1890, by R. C. JEBB, Litt.D. Cloth, is. Paper Covers, is. The Literary remains of Albrecht Diirer, by VV. M. CONWAY. With and Notes them Transcripts from the Manuscripts, upon by LINA ECKENSTEIN. Royal Svo. 21*. The Collected Papers of Henry Bradshaw, including his Memoranda and Communications read before the Cambridge Society. M.A. Svo. i6s. With 13 facsimiles. Edited by F.J.H.JENKINSON, Demy

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

;7. JUN 1 4197s




B Zeno, of Citium 626 The fragments of Zeno and Z21P4 Cleanthes